Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

LANDS IMPROVEMENT COMPANY'S AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]

TWEED FISHERIES BILL [Lords]

WHITGIFT CHARITIES BILL [Lords]

BLACKPOOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

KIDDERMINSTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE WATER BILL (By Order)

Third Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

GREATER LONDON LOCAL RADIO AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Power Station Commissioning (Delays)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Power what action he proposes to take on the recommendations of the Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Wilson, appointed to inquire into delays in the commissioning of power stations.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Roy Mason): I am sorry that I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Coe), on 17th March.—[Vol. 780, c. 48.]

Mr. Palmer: In view of the urgency of many of these matters, has my right hon. Friend set any time limit to action?

Mr. Mason: Not at this stage. It is a lengthy Report, and it is having to be studied urgently with the Ministry of Technology and the C.E.G.B. As soon as I have further information, I will let the House know.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that one of the Committee's recommendations was a long-term programme for the authorisation and construction of power stations? Is it not, therefore, a matter of extreme urgency to reach agreement with the Central Electricity Generating Board as to what stations will be authorised for this year?

Mr. Mason: It is not as urgent as the hon. Gentleman suggests. He is aware of the present margin of capacity.

Nationalised Industries (Chairmen's Salaries)

Mr. Lane: asked the Minister of Power, having regard to the National Board for Prices and Incomes Report, whether he proposes to increase the salary of the Chairman of the National Coal Board; and by how much.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Minister of Power, having regard to the National Board for Prices and Incomes Report, whether he proposes to increase


the salary of the Chairman of the Electricity Council, and by how much.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Power whether he will now make a statement on the 60 per cent. increase in salaries, from £12,500 to £20,000 per annum, recommended by the National Board for Prices and Incomes for chairmen of certain State fuel boards.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Minister of Power, having regard to the National Board for Prices and Incomes Report, whether he proposes to increase the salary of the Chairman of the Gas Council; and by how much.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Power if he will implement the National Board for Prices and Incomes' report on the salaries of top people in the nationalised industries under his control.

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Minister of Power what plans he has to increase the salary of the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation; and if he will give an assurance that any increase will be in accordance with the Government's prices and incomes policy.

Mr. Mason: Generally, I would refer hon. Members to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) on 22nd April.—[Vol. 782, c. 50.]
As regards my hon. Friend's Question about the British Steel Corporation, I have now announced the reappointment of Lord Melchett as Chairman of the Corporation for a further period to 26th January, 1975, at a salary of £22,500 for the first year and £25,000 thereafter. At his own request, Lord Melchett has served so far on a personal salary of £16,000, considerably less than he was earning in the private sector and considerably less than the agreed range for the Deputy Chairmen.

Mr. Lane: Although I welcome the Government's acceptance in principle of the Prices and Incomes Board Report, is the right hon. Gentleman confident that the one increase to which the Government have so far committed themselves for the Chairman of the National Coal Board will be enough to offset the discrepancy between the public sector and the private in the salaries of senior executives just below the top level?

Mr. Mason: I have committed myself to most of the chairmen's increases, as recommended by the N.B.P.I. On the question of comparability, no doubt the hon. Gentleman knows that the Board did not go down that road. If it had compared public industry and the men in charge of these major responsibilities with those of private enterprise, its recommendations would have been in the region of £40,000 to £50,000 per chairman.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why the extraordinary disparity between the salaries of the chairmen of these boards has now been further aggravated? Why are the chairmen of coal, gas, electricity and the railways getting £15,000 a year whereas Lord Melchett, for no apparent reason, is getting £25,000 and an increase of 56¼ per cent. on his existing salary? Is that the right hon. Gentleman's idea of a prices and incomes policy?

Mr. Mason: Because the N.B.P.I. recognised that the British Steel Corporation was a different industry. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport said in 1967, it is a different industry. It is certainly very different from the nationalised domestic concerns of, for example, coal, gas and electricity.

Mr. Baker: Would the Minister care to deny reports in the Press that when these increases are implemented the various chairmen and senior managers concerned may have some of their allowances cut and that that would, in effect, eliminate their increases?

Mr. Mason: That is one recommendation in the Report on a subject which has still to be determined between the chairmen of the industries concerned—not all of them are concerned—and myself.

Mr. Ridley: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why the steel chairman is to get so much more than the other fuel industry chairmen? Is it because the steel industry is supposed to be competitive whereas the other fuel industries are not, which was the reason given by Lord Melchett?

Mr. Mason: There are a number of reasons. The first is that steel is not a domestic nationalised industry like, for


example, coal, gas and electricity. Secondly, most of it operates alongside a large private sector which contains 100,000 men and up to 200 firms. Thirdly, it must be internationally competitive. Fourthly, it must compete, particularly from the point of view of higher management, with private manufacturing as well.

Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend believe that patriotism should start at the top? What is the point of exhorting the likes of building workers and bus crews to stick to a 3½ per cent. norm while, at the same time, he sanctions increases of this character? Would not he agree that inconsistencies of this kind are resulting in the Government losing the support of thousands of working-class people throughout the country?

Mr. Mason: No, Sir. That is happening because of ill-informed comment such as that I have heard in the House. [Interruption.] Patriotism in this respect did start at the op. The Chairman of the British Steel Corporation voluntarily took a cut in his salary of £4,000 a year and two senior deputy chairmen and two full-time members of the Board voluntarily took a cut of 12½ per cent. No other members of senior management have done that in the last two years.

Mr. Palmer: On the question of comparability, does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the annual rate of capital investment in steel is very small indeed compared with, say, the electricity supply industry?

Mr. Mason: That is so only if one makes a comparison between steel and electricity as a whole—the C.E.G.B. and the 12 area boards.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that only by sharply reducing the rate of tax on earned income will the Government effectively be able to make sense of the salary structure of top management?

Mr. Atkinson: Was my right hon. Friend aware that when he was negotiating with Lord Melchett he was to be the first Minister to increase a recommendation made by the N.B.P.I.? Was he aware, while he was doing that, that he would cause a national outrage, particularly in the Labour movement? Did the Cabinet approve his decision?

Mr. Mason: I have, of course, noted the comments which my hon. Friend made during the weekend in which he referred to me as being too gutless to make a statement in the House. I have given him an opportunity today—

Mr. Shinwell: Why not debate it?

Mr. Mason: I should have thought that the salary of one chairman represented a subject on which I should not take up too much of the time of the House.
The N.B.P.I. pointed out in its Report that the level of pay in the British Steel Corporation was substantially higher than in other State enterprises and reflected in part its recent past as a separate group of private enterprises. The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries also emphatically said last year that we should not refer the matter to the Board but should pay the rate for the job. That is precisely what I have tried to do.

Sir J. Eden: Why has the right hon. Gentleman down-graded, by comparison, other chairmen of nationalised power industries in the face of the increase to the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation? What exactly are the criteria by which the right hon. Gentleman judges the degree of competitiveness of the industry?

Mr. Mason: I have not down-graded them. I have given them increases in accordance with the Board's wishes. I have already explained the differences between the Corporation and other industries.

Mr. Alfred Morris: What note, if any, do the Government take of additional paid employments held by the chairmen of nationalised boards? How many such additional employments do they now hold?

Mr. Mason: Chairmen must receive my specific permission and consent if they wish to take up such employments. If my hon. Friend will table a Question on the subject, no doubt I shall be able to give him the information he requires.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very unsatisfactory reply given by the Minister to Question No. 7, I beg to give notice


that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Steel Prices

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Power whether he will now make a statement on increased steel prices.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Power what assessment he has made of the economic effect of the proposed increase in steel prices; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Power what arrangements have now been made for the provision of steel plates and sections for the shipbuilding industry at special rates, as recommended in the Geddes Report, accepted by the Government; and when he received the report on steel prices by the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): On all matters concerning steel prices, my right hon. Friend is awaiting the Report of the N.B.P.I., which is expected shortly.

Sir G. Nabarro: Since this crucially important matter has been before the Board for many months, would the hon. Gentleman say what influence the Ministry has had on the final adjudication? Is the delay not unconnected with the recent rearrangement in salary for Lord Melchett?

Mr. Freeson: The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary is, "No, Sir". The answer to the first part is that we have not influenced any final adjudication, particularly as one has not yet been made.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that even in the present protectionist system Continental steel is doing much harm to our domestic market and that the proposed increase—I understand that it is in the region of 14 per cent.—will weaken our competitive ability still further? Would not my hon. Friend agree that the faster he stops the empire-builders from creating jobs for the boys at extortionate salaries, the faster he will be able to scale down increases of this character and make us more competitive?

Mr. Freeson: The last part of that supplementary question is nonsense. The answer to the first part, about the reference to the Board, is that we are awaiting the Board's report.

Mr. Peyton: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that before the price increases were submitted to the N.B.P.I. they were examined by the Department and the Treasury? If they were, what on earth is the point of this totally unnecessary manœuvre and long delay? Can he give an estimate of the cost to the steel industry of delaying this increase in price?

Mr. Freeson: I am not in a position to make such an estimate. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question about the grounds for the reference, I suggest that the Government would have been open to even more criticism had they not referred the price proposals to the Board. The best thing for us to do is to wait for the report, which will be coming forward soon, and see what that produces.

Mr. James Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the steel workers are putting their best feet forward and are achieving a tremendous increase in steel production? Is he also aware that any further increase in the price of steel will have a serious effect on, for example, the construction industry? Will he particularly bear in mind that Lanarkshire is a development area and that there is every possibility that many jobs will be lost there if such an increase takes place?

Mr. Freeson: Points of this nature will no doubt be borne closely in mind by the N.B.P.I. in reaching its conclusion To answer my hon. Friend's questions now would be difficult, since we do not yet know the recommendations that will be made by the Board.

Electricity and Gas Industries (Financial Objectives)

Mr. Emery: asked the Minister of Power what financial targets he has set for the electricity and gas industries for 1969–70; whether he will now announce the financial objectives for the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mason: I will inform the House of the new objectives when they have been settled.

Mr. Emery: Is it not time that the industry had these objectives from the Minister? Does he not agree that he should fulfil the recommendations in Cmnd. Paper 3437, which suggested that this information should already he in the hands of the chairmen, and that they should be for a five-year period, not just the immediate 12 months?

Mr. Mason: As the hon. Member has suggested, Cmnd. Paper 3437 is determining our economic and financial objectives. To get the relevant data from the nationalised industries has taken a little time, but it is our intention to plan over a five-year period.

Mr. Palmer: When the Minister fixes these targets, will he see that there is equality of treatment in the return expected from electricity as against gas?

Mr. Mason: I cannot give that promise, but I shall certainly look at the suggestion.

Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors

Sir J. Eden: asked the Minister of Power what consultations he had with the Central Electricity Generating Board before the ground rules for advanced gas cooled reactors were changed; and when the decision was taken.

Mr. Mason: I have been aware since my early discussions with the C.E.G.B. in the summer of last year that a change was under consideration. The C.E.G.B. formally notified me of its decision last month.

Sir J. Eden: In view of the strong argument and discussion which is now taking place between the Coal Board and the C.E.G.B. as to the costs of nuclear power versus coal-fired stations, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it was disingenuous, to say the least, to have allowed the ground rules to be changed and go through as a footnote in Written Answer rather than making a proper declaration to the House and to the industries concerned?

Mr. Mason: No, I did not think that was so. It has been under consideration for some time and could have been announced prior to the Seaton Carew decision, but if the C.E.G.B. had done it then and I had informed the House, it would have been charged with being

biased. There is always this difficulty over nuclear or coal-fired stations as to when the announcement should be made, but I did not think it warranted a statement to the House just before the Board had changed one of its ground rules.

Fuel Industries (Prices)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Power if he will seek statutory power to control the level of prices in the fuel industries, as recommended by the Select Committee on nationalised industries.

Mr. Mason: I would ask the hon. Member to await the Government's reply to the Select Committee's Report.

Mr. Ridley: Is the Minister aware that it is already eight months since that Report was published? If he is not to take power to control prices of fuel industries, will he give up trying to do so?

Mr. Mason: The Select Committee Report was a substantial document, and a considered reply is being prepared. I hope that the point raised by the hon. Member will be considered in the reply.

National Coal Board and British Steel Corporatoin (Regional Policy)

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: asked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied with the arrangements for consultation with the National Coal Board and British Steel Corporation on matters relevant to regional policy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir. My officials are frequently in touch with both boards on regional matters, and have regular joint meetings with their officials. I discuss the main issues from time to time with the chairman. There is thus both close co-operation and a wide exchange of relevant information and experience.

Mr. Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend say whether a good relationship exists between the National Coal Board and the British Steel Corporation?

Mr. Mason: Yes. A recent example of their co-operation, particularly in regard to the initial Question, is that they have jointly commissioned Political and Economic Planning to do research on methods of attracting industry to remote areas. Recognising that there may be some steel plant closures in areas where


coal mines have closed, both are eager to work together, to co-operate and to learn from each other's experience.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Have there been consultations with the British Steel Corporation in the shipbuilding areas about steel prices, which are vital to the future of the industry?

Mr. Mason: So they may be, but this is not relevant to the original Question on the Order Paper.

Home Refining

Mr. Ron Lewis: asked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied with the progress that has been made in implementing the Government's policy on home refining; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mason: With the addition of 11 million tons of annual capacity in 1968 and a further 17 million tons under construction substantial progress has been made towards the Government's objective that home refining capacity should match in total inland demand and bunkers. Net imports of petroleum products are being reduced and by 1970 refinery capacity should be sufficient in total to allow some net exports.

Mr. Lewis: How much of the new refinery capacity is owned by British companies?

Mr. Mason: About 40 per cent.

Pipelines

Mr. Ron Lewis: asked the Minister of Power if he will state the numbers of pipelines which have been constructed under authorisations granted in accordance with the Pipelines Act 1962, the total mileage covered, the number of compulsory acquisition orders made and the length of line included in those orders.

Mr. Mason: 14 cross-country pipelines, covering 667 miles including the Thames-Mersey line. No compulsory purchase orders, and only six compulsory rights orders for 1¼ miles have been made.

Mr. Lewis: What statutory rights has an individual to object to a pipeline?

Mr. Mason: There can be no cross-country pipeline without my consent; a proposal must be advertised; and objectors must have an opportunity at hearings or public inquiries to put their case.

But, as I have already pointed out, we have built 667 miles of pipeline and there have been no objections of note. This is an excellent example of public relations by the industries concerned.

Uranium Supplies

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Power what study he has made of the survey of uranium supplies made by the European Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency, a copy of which is in his possession; and whether he still expects nuclear power stations to be competitive with those using coal.

Mr. Mason: I see no reason to change the assumptions about relative generating costs outlined in the Fuel Policy White Paper (Cmnd. 3438), and would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley) on 14th April.—[Vol. 781, c. 225.]

Mr. Eadie: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the expected world shortage of uranium supplies could affect our nuclear energy programme? Does not he further agree that it is, therefore, desirable to have a complete reappraisal of the use of coal, our own indigenous resource?

Mr. Mason: Questions about the availability of uranium should go to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology and not to me, but I understand that stocks plus imports under existing contracts are likely to meet our requirements until well into the 1970s and that no significant increase in the price of uranium is expected over the next five years.

North Sea (Energy Potential)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Power what consideration he has given to the future termination of concessions for the exploration of the North Sea energy potential; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mason: I have no power to terminate existing concessions, unless there is a breach of the licence conditions, but after six years each licensee is required to surrender not less than half the area of each licence. No decision has yet been


taken about the terms and conditions on which surrendered areas may be re-licensed.

Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a body of opinion in the country is anxious about the outcome and that the Labour Party has a policy in relation to the subject? Do the Government propose to implement Labour Party policy?

Mr. Mason: I suppose that my hon. Friend is referring to the North Sea Gas Study Group—for example, the suggestion for a National Hydrocarbons Corporation. As the House has been informed, this is under consideration.

Primary Energy Consumption

Mr. Silvester: asked the Minister of Power what is his latest estimate of the effect on the relative consumption of different forms of primary energy in 1975, compared with the forecasts in the 1967 White Paper, of the abolition of the tax on fuel oil.

Mr. Freeson: The estimates given in The Fuel Policy White Paper (Cmnd. 3438) remain valid.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY

Supply Industry (Re-organisation)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Power if he will now make a statement on the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry.

Mr. Lane: asked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement before the Whitsun adjournment on his plans for the reorganisation of the electricity industry.

Mr. Boston: asked the Minister of Power when the expects to announce the results of his review of the structure of the electricity industry.

Mr. Mason: I have had extensive consultations with those principally concerned with the structure and organisation of the industry. As soon as I have reached a final conclusion, I will inform the House.

Mr. Palmer: Now that my right hon. Friend has received the Report of his Working Party, does he not think that

it would be useful to all concerned to publish it as a White Paper?

Mr. Mason: I will certainly consider that, but first I must complete all the necessary consultations. So far, I have met the Electricity Council, the C.E.G.B., the 12 area board chairmen and representatives of the principal unions concerned.

Mr. Lane: In any legislation which the Minister may be considering, will he bear in mind the possibility of including a provision that, in future, it will be wholly at the discretion of the Chairman of the Electricity Council to make any further changes in organisation which may be necessary?

Mr. Mason: I will keep that in mind.

Mr. Boston: Can my right hon. Friend give any idea when he will be able to say what his final findings are? What consideration has he been giving to creating larger areas?

Mr. Mason: Larger areas are very much in doubt. On the first point, it will be some time before we can complete the round of consultations and firm up our ideas sufficiently to be able to determine when legislation will be necessary.

Sir J. Eden: Could I press the right hon. Gentleman to consider tabling a White Paper on this matter? To what extent could some of the changes be made in advance of legislation?

Mr. Mason: As I said earlier, I will certainly consider the publication of a White Paper at an appropriate time.

Resale Price

Sir J. Eden: asked the Minister of Power whether he is aware of the present widespread evasion of the law laying down a maximum resale price of electricity; and if he will seek powers to publicise the statutory limit.

Mr. Freeson: The steady volume of complaints I receive certainly suggests that there is widespread evasion. Publicity for maximum resale prices is already a statutory obligation of area boards under Section 29(2) of the Electricity Act, 1957.

Sir J. Eden: In his consideration of the steps he should now be taking, will


the Minister concentrate on giving as much publicity as he can to the fact that there is this maximum limit and by means of the courts people can reclaim for over-charging? Has he given consideration to making overcharging a criminal offence?

Mr. Freeson: On the first point, I am glad of the opportunity of giving the matter publicity and I hope that area boards will take note of the point that has been made. Certainly I have raised the question of publicity and considered it with the consultative councils. They are doing their best to help. The question of legislation is not a matter we would rule out. We are considering whether it would be feasible to make it effective, which is something we could pursue.

Mr. Lubbock: Is it not completely unrealistic to expect the victims of overcharging, who generally are in poor circumstances, to take action in the courts to recover amounts of over-charging? Will the hon. Gentleman therefore take powers to enable local electricity boards to institute prosecutions against anyone alleged to be guilty of this offence and also to test the meters and advise consumers whether the meters are wrongly set?

Mr. Freeson: The first point made by the hon. Member is a fair comment. It is difficult for many people who are suffering from this kind of thing to take necessary action in self-defence through the courts. On the latter point, I would not wish to comment at this stage as to the precise form which any legislation which might be considered feasible might take. It is a matter we wish to study.

Generating Plant

Mr. Tudor Watkins: asked the Minister of Power what was the capacity and the capital cost of new generating plant ordered by the Central Electricity Generating Board during the four years 1961 to 1964 and during the four years 1965 to 1968.

Mr. Freeson: Twenty-four and six thousand Megawatts respectively, at a capital cost of approximately £1,240 million and £460 million. The lower rate of orders during the later period was to correct the over-ordering during 1961–64

as a result of over-estimation of future demand in those years.

Mr. Watkins: Will the Minister tell the House what efforts have been made to bring capacity and demand into balance?

Mr. Freeson: The long-term effect of power station orders—some units ordered before 1964 will not come fully into commission until 1972—precludes the short-term matching of plant capacity with demand, but the capital expenditure programme, as I have already said, has been adjusted downwards in the last years to try to achieve a balance in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS

North Sea Gas (Security of Supply)

Mr. Emery: asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking to ensure either a stand-by capacity or a continuity of supply of North Sea gas in view of the number of accidents that have taken place in the North Sea during the last 12 months.

Mr. Cant: asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking in view of the recent cut in North Sea gas supplies caused by the accident to the Shell-Esso production platform, to ensure that there will be no disruption of supplies to consumers as a result of further such accidents.

Mr. Freeson: Consumers were not affected by the Shell-Esso accident. The loss of gas was made good by increasing supplies from B.P. and the Canvey storage, but mostly by switching town gas plant from natural gas to oil feedstock. Security of the North Sea supply will be ensured as facilities increase: like the newly-commissioned Leman Bank pipeline and plans for more trunk line storage.

Mr. Emery: As the hon. Gentleman will realise, there have been a number of other accidents in the North Sea. If such actions should happen again, the North Sea supply would be in very great danger. Does the Minister actually mean that he is not making any standby proposals for meeting a shortage of North Sea gas, perhaps by 1973 or 1975, if there were further accidents?

Mr. Freeson: I thought I had indicated in my main Answer that security is to be ensured as the storage facilities increase and fresh lines are brought in to bring the supplies ashore. One must make a sharp distinction between the present position and that which will obtain in the 1970s. Something like 15 per cent. goes direct to consumers at the moment, and the rest goes into the town gas plant. I do not think there is any need for fear in this respect.

Mr. Ashton: Is my hon. Friend yet in a position to announce his decision as to setting up a national hydrocarbons corporation to control North Sea gas?

Mr. Freeson: No, that is a different question.

Investment

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Minister of Power what is his estimate of the amount by which investment in gas would be reduced on the basis that the test discount rate was raised from eight per cent. to 12 per cent.

Mr. Freeson: No significant estimate can be given. Among many uncertainties are the effects which a higher return on new investment would have on tariffs—so affecting demand—and on investment to meet such demand.

Mr. Baker: What is the Parliamentary Secretary's view on the comment by Sir Alec Cairncross that the discount rate should be raised from 8 per cent. to 9 per cent.?

Mr. Freeson: I would not wish to make any coment on that statement at this stage.

Mr. Ridley: Since interest rates for capital for the private sector have gone up by very nearly 50 per cent. in the last two or three years, why has the test discount rate not gone up by a similar percentage?

Mr. Freeson: To answer that question I would have to deny the answer that I gave to the question asked by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker), that I do not wish to make any comment at this stage.

North Sea Gas (Reserves)

Mr. Cant: asked the Minister of Power to what extent the present large-

scale investment in transmission systems and appliance conversion for North Sea gas is based on the level of gas reserves.

Mr. Freeson: This investment is based on the discovery of large supplies of natural gas in the North Sea and the decision to convert the whole system to its use. The new transmission system and appliances could be used for other forms of gas, if necessary.

Mr. Cant: Will the Minister say what other sources could produce gas which would be usable in converted appliances?

Mr. Freeson: The Gas Council has developed processes which can produce from oil high calorific gas which is interchangeable with natural gas. There is also a possibility of continuing the importation of natural gas, as has been done in past years, should the need arise for providing an alternative to North Sea gas, but this should not be necessary for many years. This can be done without reconversion.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend see a future for coke oven gas as a means of domestic heating and cooking in competition with North Sea gas?

Mr. Freeson: As my hon. Friend will know, even before the advent of natural gas, coke oven gas was on the way out and was being replaced by oil feedstocks in the gas industry.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: What is the latest estimate of the life of North Sea gas?

Mr. Freeson: That which has been published on many occasions. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the White Paper on Fuel Policy gave it as 25 years' life at three times the present rate of consumption. On the basis of the present rate of annual consumption, this will be equivalent to about 60 years' supply.

North Sea Gas

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of Power if he will give the latest forecast for the availability of natural gas supplies from the North Sea.

Mr. Freeson: As my right. hon. Friend recently told the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries (Cmnd. 3996), present reserves should build up to a production rate of 3,500 million cubic feet


per day. Further recent discoveries reinforce the planning figure in the Fuel Policy White Paper (Cmnd. 3438) that 4,000 million cubic feet per day should be available by 1975.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, since there is now some confusion in forecasting for North Sea gas, serious consideration should be given to whether we should press ahead with the domestic conversions and use up this precious indigenous fuel too quickly rather than put it into industry as near the shore as possible?

Mr. Freeson: If there is any confusion it is confined to a few individuals, and I hope that the figures I have given today will correct it. The gas industry is doing an excellent job for industrial supplies but that does not mean that it should not attempt to get into the premium market as rapidly as possible. That is where it is most profitable for it to be active.

Mr. Ogden: But we are going to increase consumption from the North Sea, are we not? It is just not going to last as long as we thought, is it? We are just going to have to convert back, are we not? Why, in these circumstances, import oil instead of using our own coal?

Mr. Freeson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the manner of his supplementary question, but I must disappoint him by pointing out that if he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow he will find that I have already answered it. The industry had already been switching from indigenous coal to oil feedstock, and we are now going ahead with an even greater use of our home production of fuel. After all, North Sea gas is an indigenous fuel.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Opencast Working (North Warwickshire)

Mr. Speed: asked the Minister of Power how many objections, from organisations and individuals, he has re-reived so far to the National Coal Board's proposal for opencast working on the Anker site in North Warwickshire.

Mr. Freeson: Twelve and 183 respectively.

Mr. Speed: Since a number of those objections were made on behalf of thou-

snads of people, does the hon. Gentleman realise the widespread concern about this proposal? Could be give a date for and the venue in which the public inquiry is to take place?

Mr. Freeson: I am very much appreciative of the feelings expressed by many people in the locality. As I have indicated, numerous objections have been raised. It would not be right for me to do any more than I did in the debate last Friday and to comment on a matter which is sub judice. We have no date fixed yet, but we hope to appoint one soon.

Mr. Hooley: Would my hon. Friend agree that the Opencast Executive would be better employed clearing up dereliction than creating it?

Mr. Freeson: The Opencast Executive does an excellent job in clearing up dereliction.

Pricing Policy

Mr. Speed: asked the Minister of Power whether he has completed his discussions with the National Coal Board and with other Departments on the National Coal Board's pricing policy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: asked the Minister of Power whether he is satisfied that the pricing policies of the National Coal Board are in accordance with the criteria laid down by Command Paper No. 3437; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mason: I am not yet ready to make a statement, but I hope to do so soon.

Mr. Speed: Was that not a disappointing reply? Is the Minister aware that the Treasury was expressing concern about this nearly 15 months ago and his predecessor started discussions in March, 1968? What positive action is the right hon. Gentleman taking?

Mr. Mason: As I said in my reply, I hope to make a statement soon.

Mr. Younger: Since Lord Robens said on 25th March that the Coal Board was making considerable losses in 1968–69, can the Minister assure the House that if there are to be price increases to comply with Command Paper 3437 these will be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board, as the Prime Minister promised in 1967?

Mr. Mason: I am aware that if major increases come forward, they may have to be referred to the N.B.P.I. I have received proposals for selective price increases. They are under consideration, and the Coal Consumers' Council is considering them at the same time.

Sir J. Eden: In the meantime, will the Minister confirm that it is his policy that the consumer, not the taxpayer, should pay for the products of these industries?

Mr. Mason: It depends how far down the line one wishes to go on every product.

Indigenous Fuel

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: asked the Minister of Power whether he is satisfied that the present measures of protection for the coal industry enable advantage to be taken of the use of indigenous fuel; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir. The measures of direct assistance for the coal industry constitute a massive degree of protection which ensures that coal is used to the maximum extent compatible with the national interest. It is partly as a result that our economy is more coal intensive than that of any other major industrial country in the free world.

Mr. Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give comparisons of coal utilisation between the United Kingdom and other major industrial countries?

Mr. Mason: The proportion of coal in total energy consumption in the United Kingdom is 55 per cent., in Germany, including lignite, 47 per cent., in Japan 35 per cent., in France 33 per cent. and in America 21 per cent.

Recruitment

Mr. Alec Jones: asked the Minister of Power if he will give the figures for recruitment into the coal industry in the first quarter of 1969 as compared with the first quarter of 1968.

Mr. Mason: 6,574 in 1969 compared with 2,782 in the first quarter of 1968.

Mr. Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, but is he able to say how many of those recruited were juveniles, and whether he is satisfied that the National Coal Board will be

able to maintain the recruitment of juveniles at a sufficiently high level, bearing in mind that the traditional source of recruitment in the old mining areas of South Wales will be lost?

Mr. Mason: It is necessary to keep the morale of the industry high to attract the juveniles we require. In the first quarter of 1969 we recruited 842, compared with 388 in the first quarter of 1968.

Mr. Patrick McNair Wilson: Will the Minister say whether the figures which he has quoted are in line with the target laid down by the National Coal Board of 135 million tons production in 1975, or with the Ministry's target in the White Paper of 120 million tons?

Mr. Mason: We are aiming to keep the manpower rundown within 35,000 per year, and the figure is well within that.

Sir J. Eden: Does the Minister mean 35,000 per annum, whatever the total employment in the National Coal Board, and not 10 per cent. of the National Coal Board's employment figure at the beginning of each year?

Mr. Mason: I did not refer to percentages. We are obliged within the four years special period of 1967–71 to see that there is a rundown of 140,000 men—a manageable figure of 35,000 a year. I think that the rundown was much higher last year, but this year it is running well within the figure.

Consumption (Electricity Industry)

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Minister of Power how much coal was used by the electricity industry in the first quarter of 1969, compared with the same period of the previous three years.

Mr. Freeson: In the first quarter of 1969 about 23½ million tons were used by the electricity industry compared with 21¾, 18¾ and 20 million tons, respectively, for the corresponding periods in 1968, 1967, and 1966.

Mr. Watkins: Does my hon. Friend expect this relative stability in consumption to continue?

Mr. Freeson: It is not possible for me to say that the identical figures will be repeated over the period which still stands until the conclusion of the Act in 1971,


but the figures for the first half of the current financial year will be an additional burn of 2·3 million tons of coal, and we will see how it goes towards the end of the year.

Mr. Speed: Will the hon. Gentleman say how much extra coal would have been used if the rate of growth in the National Plan had been achieved?

Mr. Freeson: Not without notice.

Mr. Ogden: Has my hon. Friend seen the announcement last week about new technical developments made by the National Coal Board which enable coal to be burned in electricity generating stations more efficiently and more cheaply?

Mr. Freeson: I imagine that my hon. Friend is referring to the fluidised bed technique which is being studied by the industry. We are fully aware of this research project, which is going ahead, and it has the full support of the C.E.G.B. It is still rather early to say what will be the outcome of the work, but we are watching it with great interest and, indeed, hope.

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Minister of Power what extra tonnage of coal was used by the electricity industry in 1968–69 as a result of Government assistance under the Coal Industry Act 1967.

Mr. Freeson: It is estimated that in 1968–69 additional coal totalling about 6½ million tons was burnt by the C.E.G.B. and the Scottish Electricity Boards as a result of Government assistance under the Coal Industry Act, 1967.

Mr. Watkins: How does my hon. Friend expect these trends to develop in 1969–70?

Mr. Freeson: I gave a partial answer to that in reply to the last Question. At present we expect in the first half of the year an extra burn of 2·3 million tons, and we will see later on in the year how far the extra burn will be authorised for the latter part of 1969–70. The Act continues until 1971, and this additional burn will be continuing.

Mr. Emery: Will the Minister tell the House how much Government finance was necessary to obtain the extra 61 million tons? In other words, what was

the subsidisation out of public funds to obtain the extra coal burn?

Mr. Freeson: I am not able to answer that question without notice. The calculations are done after the flow of coal into the power stations, and after the C.E.G.B. has identified and agreed with us what allocation of its burn is required to be subsidised in this fashion.

Manpower Rundown

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: asked the Minister of Power if he will give the figures for manpower rundown in the coal industry in the first quarter of 1969 as compared with the first quarter of 1968.

Mr. Mason: Manpower rundown in the coal industry in the first quarter of 1969 was 5,834, compared with 15,671 in the first quarter of 1968.

Mr. Davies: I welcome those figures, but will my right hon. Friend tell the House what the annual rate of rundown of manpower has been during this year?

Mr. Mason: The rundown rate so far this year is 23,000, which is well within the manageable figure to which I earlier referred of 35,000 a year.

Sir C. Osborne: How many of the men who have lost their jobs through this rundown have found other jobs, and how many are still unemployed?

Mr. Mason: I cannot give those details without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister what is the practice of his administration regarding Ministers answering points raised in a debate which cannot be answered during the course of that debate.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Prime Minister what is the practice of his administration regarding Ministers taking part in the work of non-Government political organisations.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Exactly the same as that of our predecessors, Sir.

Mr. Marten: In that case, is the Prime Minister aware that questions which are now put specifically to Ministers during the course of a debate for answer after


that debate are really being ignored? Is not this debasing the purpose of Parliamentary debate? Will he take action to put it right?

The Prime Minister: I know the hon. Gentleman's expertise and concern about the subject which I think he has in mind—the Anguilla debate. On that assumption, I reread the debate and the answers given. The hon. Gentleman received a full answer to his speech in the March debate and the subject was debated again in April. It is the experience of all right hon. and hon. Members over many years that they are not always uniformly satisfied, particularly if they are in the Opposition, at any one moment with all the answers given by the Government. I thought that the hon. Gentleman received a fair answer.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his predecessor did not have any Ministers who were members of the National Executive of the Labour Party? Will he confirm that Ministers who are members of that body are free to follow and support the policies of the Labour Party as determined by the annual conference?

The Prime Minister: It is a fact, as my hon. Friend has stated—no doubt after diligent research—that no members of the previous Government were also members of the Labour Party's National Executive. But it is also a fact—and it is not unusual in our history—that the Conservative Government included Ministers closely associated with the outside work of the Conservative Party, as, indeed, is the position today.
With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the position is that collective Ministerial responsibility applies in all circumstances no matter what other organisation a Minister may belong to.

Mr. Heath: Is there not a serious point here? The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, at the beginning of his reply to the Anguilla debate, said that there were naturally a number of detailed points to which he could not reply off the cuff. That was understandable, and it has long been the practice, particularly in the case of the Foreign Office, that Ministers read through debates afterwards and send factual replies to hon. Members who have

asked questions which could not be answered immediately. I know from my own personal experience that the right hon. Gentleman himself takes great care in sending me letters about points I have raised. All he is being asked to do here is to ensure that his right hon. Friends do the same.

The Prime Minister: I will certainly see whether, after the Anguilla debate, there are detailed points which could be dealt with in that way, and, indeed, if they are of more general interest, will also see that they are available to the House as a whole. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern but I remind him that in the Anguilla debate there were several questions about the discussions with Mr. Bradshaw which could not be answered because those discussions must be confidential. No Administration in those circumstances would answer. However, if there are detailed points which do not raise that difficulty I will certainly go into the matter.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: What is the point in answering those questions [Interruption.]—kennel up!—when the "bug wits" in the Government either do not know the answers anyway or, as reported in every newspaper, have the greatest difficulty, like the Prime Minister, in giving the true facts?

The Prime Minister: I shall naturally want to consider all the implications of that question. The hon. Gentleman will realise the difficulty of my colleagues in the Administration, in that their speeches are normally understood by Members of the House of average intelligence.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Prime Minister, what further proposals he has to secure a settlement in Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to a supplementary question by the hon. Gentleman on 17th April.—[Vol. 781, c. 1325.]

Sir C. Osborne: Is the Prime Minister not getting alarmed at the massive infiltration of the Chinese into South Africa through Dar-es-Salaam, and would not a settlement in Rhodesia be all the more urgent now?

The Prime Minister: Attempted penetration by the Chinese in various parts of Africa has been a problem for many years. I remember a warning given to this House by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home). Of course, a settlement in Rhodesia is highly desirable, but a settlement which would involve a surrender of African interests would give the Chinese just the kind of push in Africa that they need.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does my right hon. Friend not feel that this is the precise moment when we should return to our original pledge with regard to N.I.B.M.R.?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. This matter was very fully discussed in the Commonwealth Conference, as my hon. Friend knows. The "Fearless" terms, which we still regard as fair, are available, and would not be invoked in practice unless the people of Rhodesia as a whole accepted them. There is nothing to stop those in Rhodesia accepting them tomorrow.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is it not a fact that the internal constitutional position in Rhodesia is now rapidly reaching the point of no return, which it must reach in months? Is it Government policy to do nothing?

The Prime Minister: Where those who have the chance of an honourable settlement—which would be of the highest advantage to Rhodesia and to all races in Rhodesia—refuse it, it may be that they wish to push themselves to the point of no return, with or without the hon. Gentleman's help. That does not mean that we for our part should change the terms which were rightly recognised in the House as fair.

Mr. Michael Foot: Is it not the case that the plainest, most illegal and most scandalous form of penetration that is taking place into Rhodesia at present is that conducted from South Africa by South African forces? Will the Prime

Minister say what is his latest information about this invasion and what the British Government propose to do?

The Prime Minister: I am not entirely certain that even white Rhodesians are particularly happy about the infiltration referred to by my hon. Friend. I have reason for saying that. Of course this is illegal under the present constitution of South Africa. They have the excuse for it where there is terrorist penetration from the North, whether Chinese-inspired or inspired from anywhere else. The answer to all these problems is a constitutional settlement, acceptable to this House and to the mass of the people in Rhodesia. This is what we have laid on the table in Salisbury.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPARTMENTS (COMPUTER AND RELATED EQUIPMENT)

Mr. Moonman: asked the Prime Minister whether he will request from Government Departments a progress report indicating the use and management of computer and related equipment similar to that requested from the appropriate Departments by the President of the United States, details of which have been forwarded to him.

The Prime Minister: This is not necessary, Sir. I have called for and received regular reports from Government Departments, and computerisation in the Civil Service is proceeding quickly.

Mr. Moonman: While I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he would like to comment on the fact that it is reported that in the United States, partly as a result of the action taken, substantial savings have been made in government, running into several millions of dollars and it has also stimulated Civil Service, Government and industry to appreciate the use of management techniques?

The Prime Minister: We started on this straight away in October, 1964. We now have a considerable installation of


computers in Government Departments—190 compared with only 78 in September, 1964—with another 90 on order, and a very high proportion of them of British origin, contrary to the previously prevailing practice.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that one of the most important decisions facing any Government in this country during the next ten years is the access which hon. Members are to have to the Government computer network?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. We are trying all the time to make more information available. No doubt he will have seen, if he studies, as I am sure he does, the bulletin put out regularly by the Central Statistical Office, what is being done to improve and extend the Government Statistical Service. I hope we can all agree on the need to make as much of this information available to all hon. Members as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY BOUNDARY COMMISSION

Mr. Onslow: asked the Prime Minister, if he will place in the Library copies of the reports he has received concerning the probable consequences of the reports of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission.

The Prime Minister: The reports to which I referred in the House on 17th April were oral reports. [Vol. 781, c. 1324.]

Mr. Onslow: Since the sources of these reports are scarcely impartial, and since they seem to reach the improbable conclusion that the consequences would be highly marginal, is the right hon. Gentleman really asking the House and country to take his word for their validity?

Hon. Members: Shame.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that reports of this kind are usually on the pessimistic side, and not as he has suggested. I mentioned this in the course of exchanges at Question Time last week because of a widespread legend to the contrary. I referred to oral reports I had received from someone with experience in this direction who takes a different view.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that proceedings in the Cabinet are adequately protected from public disclosure; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to a supplementary question by him on this subject on 15th April.—[Vol. 781, c. 986–7.]

Mr. Thorpe: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will now give some authority and precedent for the suggestion which he made on that date; namely, that any matter that is secret in the Cabinet may be disclosed to the world at large if it be the wish of the Cabinet? Is he aware that on 4th April the most detailed report of what happened in Cabinet was given in various newspapers, all of which were substantially the same? Can the Prime Minister give us any authority for disclosing voting figures or the attitude of individual members in the history of Cabinet secrecy?

The Prime Minister: I take full responsibility for what the right hon. Gentleman has referred to. In my previous supplementary answer I said that where the Cabinet agrees to information being made available, then from that moment it is no longer regarded as an official secret. Without wearying the House for too long, I think that the history of Governments and Parliament would confirm, over a very long period of time, that there have been such disclosures in successive Governments. It is a matter for a Cabinet to decide whether, for example, a statement is made in one direction or another, or in a White Paper, or by Press briefing or in many other ways. Unauthorised leaks are a different matter, and this is a problem that has plagued all Governments in this country.

Mr. Thorpe: Are we therefore to take it that it was the unanimous will of the Cabinet that the report went out that the Prime Minister was "skilful and resourceful and tough" in his approach and that the Home Secretary was "cocky" and suggested that there should be no disclosure and no further leaks? Do we take it that that was a matter of unanimous consent?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. That was a matter of Press construction, and I know the right hon. Gentleman's interest in all these matters. He was also wrong earlier in suggesting that there were other details given, apart from one statement which was given in full and made available. I take full responsibility for that. Other items of construction put upon it by the Press are not my responsibility.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why should there be so much secrecy about these Cabinet meetings? Would it not be a step towards real democracy if the minutes of the Cabinet, and the points of view of its members, and whether they voted, were disclosed, so that we could have real democratic government and understand what is going on?

The Prime Minister: That suggestion is one that would need a great deal of consideration before I could be ready to agree to it.

Mr. Paget: Could the Prime Minister tell us whether the account in the Press, that before this proceeding took place, all the civil servants who usually attend were sent away, is correct? If this is true, how did the decision about publishing or not publishing come to be reported?

The Prime Minister: There are abundant precedents for Cabinets meeting in whole or in part without civil servants being present. It is possible to take a decision, and even to record it, without civil servants being there to record it. After all, most Cabinets include a considerable number of literate persons.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for a further extension of the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing at present to add to what I said in reply to a supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) on 25th March.—[Vol. 780, c. 1264–5.]

Mr. Molloy: In so far as many of us are pleased at the extension of the Parlia-

mentary Commissioner to Northern Ireland—an idea which should flourish in normal democratic soil—would my right hon. Friend assure us that he will see that it is not hindered in the not-too-democratic atmosphere of that part of the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I understand that a Bill to introduce a Parliamentary Commissioner in Northern Ireland is now before the Northern Ireland Parliament. That was done as part of an undertaking by the Northern Ireland Government to Her Majesty's Government, and I think that that is where we should now leave it.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman still bearing in mind the needs of the Health Service for a Parliamentary Commissioner or a special organisation of its own?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what the Secretary of State said on 27th March. The point was also discussed in the Green Paper on Health Service reorganisation. There are arguments for its being dealt with not by the Parliamentary Commissioner but by someone with special responsibilities.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPLOSION, CARDIFF

Mr. E. Rowlands: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. In the early hours of this morning, an explosion occurred in my constituency—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot, on a point of order, raise the question of something on which he has been refused a Private Notice Question.

BILL PRESENTED

PET ANIMALS ACT 1951 (AMENDMENT)

Bill to amend the Pet Animals Act, 1951; presented by Sir Ronald Russell; supported by Sir Frederick Bennett, Mr. Peter Bessell, Mr. Burden, Sir Beresford Craddock, Mr. John Hall, Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine, Sir Barnett Janner, Mr. Turton, and Mr. Ben Whitaker; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th June, and to be printed. [Bill 144.]

FIREWORKS

3.32 p.m.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restrict the sale of fireworks to those in possession of a licence.
It is important that the House should understand the magnitude of the firework injury problem. During each of the years for which I have figures, from 1962 to 1968—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House has decided that applications to introduce a Bill under the Ten-Minute Rule should be made at this time and it must listen to the hon. Member.

Mr. Roberts: During each of the years for which I have figures, from 1962 to 1968, 2,200 accident cases were treated in hospital resulting from fireworks, and in 1968 there were 2,537. If we assume that something less than a quarter of the total ever reach hospital, we must accept that about 10,000 people are injured each year by fireworks—and about 70 per cent. of these casualties are children. It is estimated that about 400 of these accidents are serious, and this usually means an injury resulting in the loss of the sight of one or both of a person's eyes.
Not only is it a question of injury; there is also the question of damage. Every year, at firework time, fire brigades are called out about 1,000 times to deal with firework accidents. It is suggested that, associated with this so-called festival, is a general increase in hooliganism affecting the sick and the old and that domestic animals are frightened. So this is a very serious problem.
My Bill would limit the sale of fireworks to those in possession of a licence, the idea being that we would confine the firework sale or demonstration to official or semi-official displays. It is only in exceptional cases that fireworks would then be in the hands of a private individual, and then only of someone who could guarantee to provide the necessary safety and fire precautions. This is not a killjoy Bill. What it aims to do away with is the back garden fireworks which are so dangerous and replace them with more organised and far more enjoyable official displays.
This attitude to the forbidding of the use of fireworks to the general public is not only mine. It is that of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and of many medical men, particularly those who have had to deal with firework accidents. I have received many hundreds of letters supporting the Bill, many from medical people and organisations of this type.
What are the arguments against the Bill? The first which is often quoted is that it represents interference with personal liberty. If one followed this argument to its logical conclusion, one might as well let people set off explosions in their back gardens. The other arguments are those raised by the Home Office about administration, but if the Home Office can suggest some other mechanism to limit the sale of fireworks I should be only too happy to accept it.
The other argument is that people would provide themselves with home-made fireworks. But the experience in Eire and in the 30 American States where fireworks have been banned is that there is no incidence of firework accidents of that type.
So we are left with the old, simple argument of money. Who stands to lose under a Bill like this? The ordinary retailer does not stand to lose, his representatives say, because for him fireworks are a once-a-year sale which can be largely replaced by books or toys, but the manufacturers estimate that they will lose about £5 million a year, or 25 per cent. of their total sales. This is really the only argument against the Bill. It is the old argument of people versus profits: it is as simple as that. I am very pleased that an hon. Member opposite has chosen to oppose the Motion, because that will give the House the chance to show that it puts people before profits.
It is in this spirit and the hope that, even if the Bill does not make any progress, the Government will, between now and next 5th November, decide to take some drastic action in this respect to prevent another 2,000 accidents on that date—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have pyrotechnics on a Ten-Minute Rule Bill.

Mr. Roberts: It is in the belief that people must be put first and that the spate of accidents caused by fireworks


must be prevented that I commend the Motion to the House.

3.38 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: I agree with the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) on one of his points, namely, that it is necessary to consider the individual. He should consider the harmless enjoyment of large numbers of families who hold well-conducted firework displays without giving any trouble to anybody. Fireworks give a great deal of pleasure provided that there is proper control. Fireworks should be safe when they are properly handled, but if they are used recklessly or maliciously they can be offensive and most unpleasant. Equally, it is unwise to allow small children to handle fireworks without supervision.
This is not a reason for preventing family firework parties. The House must be impressed by the serious casualties which take place every year at the time of the November firework displays. We have compassion for every single injury, but surely we must keep matters in perspective.
For every million fireworks set off there are approximately three serious casualties. One would wish that that number did not occur at all, but strenuous efforts are made to try to reduce the amount of firework casualties. The British Firework Manufacturers' Safety Association was set up in 1962 and it has steadily attempted to reduce firework casualties. It is developing safer forms of fireworks. It goes in for a great deal of safety publicity during November. This year it intends to have advertisements with no reference to the firms entirely dealing with safety precautions, to appear in local papers on 5th November. Leaflets are contained in all boxes of fireworks to ensure that people understand how to let them off safely.
As a result, there has been a downward trend in the casualties since 1962, when the Association came into existence. Serious casualties are down by no fewer than 60 per cent. Regrettably, there was an upturn in 1968 in the less serious casualties, but the general trend is downward.
We can take for purposes of comparison home accidents which are something

that the House should consider. In 1967, the last year for which I have figures, the number of deaths from poisoning was 1,307, from falls, 3,890; burns and scalds, 688; suffocation and choking, 583; and other causes of home accidents resulting in death, 641. But as for fireworks, no deaths at all. There must be an enormous number of casualties, serious and otherwise, which do not result in deaths from these causes. We do not hear very much about that aspect.
The hon. Member suggests that there should be licensing, which would imply that only public displays can take place. This means that there must be large-scale displays of set pieces. It is difficult 'to estimate how many would be required on 5th November. Each hon. Member would have to make his own calculation for his own constituency. In my own constituency between 20 and 30 experts would be required to let off the fireworks.
These experts simply do not exist. There are a small number of trained men who are capable of going all over the world and setting off the most wonderful firework displays, but to think that one can multiply that number by hundreds or thousands in order to achieve a similar capability is ludicrous. Remember that all the training that would be necessary is for one night of the year.
The consequence would be that inexpert people would let off displays of quite sophisticated fireworks. Figures have been quoted about public and semi-public displays. The number of casualties in that respect amounts to 15 per cent. of all casualties. However, the sales of fireworks which are used in the displays represent only 2 per cent. of the total. This appears to indicate that these types of firework are far more dangerous and that there might be a danger of greater injury rather than less in the case of organised displays. Two hundred and fifty years ago last night there was a gigantic firework display to celebrate the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle which, unfortunately, resulted in the wooden stands being set on fire and burning down, and the panic must have been considerable.
The hon. Member mentioned the encouragement of home-made fireworks which would result from this ban on home fireworks. He is a little optimistic if he thinks that that would not take place.


Unfortunately, there are already a number of attempts to make home-made fireworks. From the very nature of the material commonly used in making a home-made firework, a dangerous article is produced and it often results in serious casualties.
The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on 12th December, 1968, whether he would
review the existing legislation governing the sale of fireworks in the light of his Department's study of firework casualties.
The Under-Secretary of State, now on the Front Bench, replied:
During the period 1962 to 1967, the number of accidents has fallen by some 29 per cent. and the number of serious injuries by some two-thirds. The Home Office will keep safety precausions under continuous examination in consultation with the trade; safety

publicity will continue to be issued; and shopkeepers will again be reminded of their statutory obligations relating to sale and storage. I am not at present satisfied that proposals to amend the law would be justified."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1968: Vol. 775, c. 561.]

That is the Government's attitude.

I ask the House to reject this Motion, first, because it interferes with the harmless enjoyment of well-conducted family parties, and, secondly, because it would result in large-scale displays being organised by inexpert bands which would probably result in worse casualties.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 136.

Division No. 172.]
AYES
[3.39 p.m.


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Huckfield, Leslie
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Oakes, Gordon


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric


Barnes, Michael
Hynd, John
Orbach, Maurice


Barnett, Joel
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Orme, Stanley


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Janner, Sir Barnett
Oswald, Thomas


Bessell, Peter
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bidwell, Sydney
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Bishop, E. S.
Johnson, carol (Lewisham, S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Judd, Frank
Pavitt, Laurence


Carmichael, Neil
Kelley, Richard
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Coleman, Donald
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Delargy, Hugh
Lestor, Miss Joan
Probert, Arthur


Dickens, James
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rankin, John


Dobson, Ray
Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Driberg, Tom
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McBride, Neil
Rose, Paul


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McCann, John
Rowlands, E.


Ellis, John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mackie, John
Sheldon, Robert


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Maclennan, Robert
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Thornton, Ernest


Foster, Sir John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Freeson, Reginald
Manuel, Archie
Urwin, T. W.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mapp, Charles
Wallace, George


Garrett, W. E.
Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Ginsburg, David
Mayhew, Christopher
Wilkins, W. A.


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mendelson, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mikardo, Ian
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Molloy, William



Hannan, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Albert Booth and


Hobden, Dennis
Newens, Stan
Mr. Edwin Brooks.


Hooley, Frank






NOES


Astor, John
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Balniel, Lord
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Bell, Ronald
Biggs-Davison, John




Black, Sir Cyrll
Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John


Blaker, Peter
Hiley, Joseph
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborne, Sir Cyrll (Louth)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Peel, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Holland, Philip
Peyton, John


Bryan, Paul
Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner


Buchanan, Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Burden, F. A.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pym, Francis


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hunter, Adam
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees, Merlyn


Carlisle, Mark
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Channon, H. P. G.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cordle, John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Roebuck, Roy


Crawshaw, Richard
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Russell, Sir Ronald


Currie, G. B. H.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dance, James
Kitson, Timothy
Sharples, Richard


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lambton, Viscount
Sinclair, Sir George


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lancaster, col. C. G.
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Dempsey, James
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Speed, Keith


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stoddart-Scott, col. Sir M.


Doughty, Charles
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'd field)
Tapsell, Peter


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langetone)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Eden, Sir John
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lubbock, Eric
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Tinn, James


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Emery, Peter
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Vickers, Dame Joan


English, Michael
McNair-Wilson, M. (Walthamstow, E.)
Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)


Eyre, Reginald
Maginnis, John E.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fisher, Nigel
Marten, Neil
Walters, Dennis


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maude, Angus
Weatherill, Bernard


Glyn, Sir Richard
Mawby, Ray
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wiggin, A. W.


Gower, Raymond
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Grant, Anthony
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Monro, Hector
Worsley, Marcus


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wylie, N. R.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Younger, Hn. George


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh



Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Murray, Albert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Mr. James Allason and


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey
Mr. Oscar Murton.


Haseldine, Norman
Nicholls, Sir Harmar

POST OFFICE BILL


As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.


3.50 p.m.


Mr. Speaker: As is my custom, and after much cogitation this time, I have posted my selection of Amendments. The first one that we shall be taking is new Clause 1.

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With the new Clause, I suggest that we take sub-Amendments (a) in line 1, leave out from '(1)' to 'before' and insert:

'The Post Office shall require the Minister's approval
(b) In line 1, leave out 'a subsidiary of its' and insert 'any of its subsidiaries'.
(c) In line 6, leave out 'it shall similarly be requisite' and insert:
'the Minister's approval shall also be required'.


(d) In line 15, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'section'.
(e) In line 22, leave out 'in such manner as he thinks fit'.
(f) In line 25, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'subsections (1) and (2)'.
(g) To leave out lines 37 to 39.
Amendment No. 23, in page 6, line 38, leave out 'construct, manufacture, produce,'.
Amendment No. 25, in page 7, line 9, at end add:
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section the postal and telecommunications services operated by the Post Office shall remain in what is commonly called public ownership.
and Amendment No. 60, in page 13, line 29, leave out Clause 13.

Mr. Paul Bryan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I give notice that, in addition to voting against the Clause, we shall probably want to vote against sub-Amendment (a)?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask whether Mr. Speaker will allow a separate vote against sub-Amendment (a).

Mr. Bryan: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. May I humbly ask whether we may have a separate vote on sub-Amendment (a)?

Mr. Speaker: It is not necessary for the hon. Gentleman to ask humbly. However, I had been given notice of this request and I have given it consideration. I am prepared to allow a separate Division on sub-Amendment (a) when we come to it.

Mr. John Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to sub-Amendment (b)? Your careful perusal of the Bill will have caused you to notice, I do not doubt, at various intervals the occurrence of the objectionable phrase "a subsidiary"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not debating sub-Amendment (b) at the moment. The hon. Gentleman may debate it when we come to the debate on the Clause and the Amendments, of which this is one.

Mr. Peyton: Mr. Speaker, I was appealing to your mercy that, despite the fact that this is only a drafting Amend-

ment, the phraseology concerned is so abominable that I hope that you will be indulgent enough to permit a separate Division on this one as well.

Mr. Speaker: News of the hon. Gentleman's view had reached me. I have given it consideration, but, unless something terrific happens, I am not prepared to allow a Division on sub-Amendment (b).

Mr. Tom Driberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have not selected my sub-Amendment (h), to leave out lines 1 to 36 and insert:
'The Post Office and any of its subsidiaries shall, after consultation with the Minister, have power to construct, manufacture, or produce, for and relevant purpose, things of any kind to an extent which may be necessary in the public interest at any time, and to engage in any activities related thereto; and shall further have power to construct, manufacture, produce, or purchase for supply to outside persons things for use by such persons otherwise than in connection with services provided by the Post Office or a subsidiary of its;'.
However, since it stands on the Notice Paper and may be read by hon. Members, perhaps I might be allowed to point out two misprints.
The first of them makes nonsense of one line of the sub-Amendment. In the third line, the first word "and" should be "any". The second misprint relates to—new Clause 6—(Questions to the Minister)—which is shown on the Notice Paper to be supported by a number of my hon. Friends. The same names should appear before my sub-Amendment (h), but were omitted owing to a misunderstanding.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised what is almost an academic point. He wants the wording of an Amendment which is not selected to be corrected. HANSARD will note that, and I imagine that it will emerge from the debate on new Clause 6, since some of the hon. Members whose names were omitted from his sub-Amendment will want to speak in it. However, it will not affect sub-Amendment (h), because that has not been selected.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Stonehouse: I think that it will be useful to the House if I paint in the background and the context in which the new Clause is being considered.
The Post Office is engaged in a tremendous and dynamic expansion programme.


About eight or nine years ago the investment programme was under £100 million a year. Last year, the investment programme reached £333 million. Next year, this will rise to £360 million. This tremendous programme has largely been successful because of the excellent co-operation that has been established between the Post Office and its main suppliers.
The expansion has, however, meant that in certain areas there has been a shortage of supplies and delay in supplying equipment, which has been somewhat embarrassing to us. The Post Office accepts partial responsibility for this, because the enormous expansion in the programme has meant that suppliers have had to gear themselves to it in a very short time indeed.
The expansion programme for the current five years is even more dramatic in its impact. During these five years we are spending £2,000 million on development of the old, and, indeed, a new, communications system in Britain. This is double what was spent during the previous five years which, in turn, was double what was spent during the five years before that. So the House will appreciate that the expansion programme is dynamic, that it is greater than any other Administration have engaged upon, and that it will provide a tremendously successful communications system in Britain.
Of the £2,000 million about £660 million—about a third of the total—will be spent on exchange equipment and about £340 million will be spent on trunk and junction circuits. It is obvious that if the Post Office is to successfully implement this immense development programme it must have a smooth flow of equipment from the suppliers. As I have said, we have a very friendly and co-operative arrangement with our main suppliers, so we hope to achieve that.
The Clause will give the new Post Office Corporation reserve powers in case it becomes clear, in course of time, that the major and minor suppliers of equipment that the Post Office requires, are unable to supply the quality of equipment at the price that the Post Office is willing and feels able to pay. The suppliers of the Post Office, through a series of amalgamations, could establish a virtual

monopoly position. In that event, the Post Office would be faced with the stark choice of having to buy at an excessive price from a monopoly supplier, or buying its essential supplies from abroad. In these circumstances, the Post Office would consider establishing manufacturing facilities for its own supplies.
This is a reserve power. It is not the intention of the Post Office at this point of time or, indeed, during the next year or so, to enter into any such manufacturing investment, because it is satisfied with the relationship that has been established with its main suppliers. But it is essential for the Post Office Corporation, in its new commercial rôle, to have the power to establish manufacturing facilities to meet its own requirements. The Clause is designed to give the Post Office that power.
Under subsection (1) the Post Office would have to consult with the Minister before any development of its facilities was embarked upon. This is a very important safeguard, because it will enable the Minister to consult the other Departments concerned, particularly the Ministry of Technology, which is the sponsoring Ministry for the supplying firms. It ensures that the supplying firms are not faced with a fait accompli decision on the part of the Post Office, but will have time to adjust themselves to any change in plans by the G.P.O. The consultation will also enable the sponsoring Minister, if he so wishes, to join in the discussions between the Post Office and its main supplying firms to iron out any problems of principle that may exist between them.
Last week, I met a deputation from the C.B.I. to discuss this very question. I undertook to the C.B.I. that before the Post Office Corporation is set up—we hope on 1st October next—the Postmaster-General will meet it and the new board of the Corporation to discuss the kind of problems that could arise in the interpretation of the new Clause if the House sees fit to pass it.
Moving on to subsection (2), the House will notice a distinction between the treatment of supplies for internal requirements and supplies for persons outside the Post Office. In this case we believe that not only should the Minister be consulted, but that the Minister's approval must be provided before the Post


Office enters into the construction, manufacture, production or purchase for supply to persons outside. This is important to control the activities of the Post Office in diversification for supply outside its normal range of activities.
Under subsection (3) we undertake to allow the Minister to publish, in such manner as he thinks fit, particulars of any approval given under subsection (2) and to send these details to the C.B.I. and to the T.U.C.
Subsection (4) provides that any activities in which the Post Office engages under subsection (2) shall be carried out
as if it were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise, and it shall so exercise its control over a subsidiary of its that carries on any such activities as to ensure that the subsidiary so acts.
This is to ensure that there is no possible doubt that the Post Office Corporation is not engaging in cross subsidisation of activities in supplying persons outside the G.P.O.
The House will realise that, as the Post Office is being given sharp financial objectives, it would be unwilling to enter into manufacturing activities unless it was sorely pressed to do so. It would naturally prefer to obtain its major supplies from well-established outside suppliers, because it is reasonable to expect that they would be obtained at the cheapest price in those circumstances. If the Post Office were to engage in a large-scale investment programme to meet its own requirements, it would no doubt have to incur a greater expense in production than by buying from outside. I emphasise that this is essentially a reserve power. There is no intention at this time of the Post Office establishing any large-scale production facilities.
There are other subsidiary points I should like to draw out here, not only in relation to the major supplies to which the Clause is applied, but which can also apply to relatively minor pieces of equipment required by the Post Office and which are absolutely essential to the fulfilment of its responsibilities. If the Post Office is not able to get its supplies from existing suppliers on the time scale required, it will be able quickly, and with the minimum amount of bureaucratic delay, to set up the facilities required. As the Post Office has these broad financial objectives which it must meet, it is un-

likely that it would want to carry on such activities unless it was essential for it to do so.
The House may be concerned about the extent of Ministerial control over these activities. I am sure that hon. Members are aware of the dangers, which were discussed in Committee, of cross-subsidisation between the various activities within the Corporation. The Government are anxious to ensure that the Post Office does not engage in cross-subsidisation, and that is why, in the last White Paper "Post Office Prospects 1969–70", the uneconomic services of the Post Office were fully identified. It was done so that it would be easy for the public, and for the Post Office itself, to note the activities which involved a loss, and to which special attention must be paid. It obviously would be unwise for manufacturing activities in the Post Office to be carried on at an uneconomic rate which would inevitably be a burden on the consumers of the main services of the Post Office who would have to pay more for those services to subsidise manufacturing activities which could be carried on outside.
It is not the intention of the Clause to encourage that sort of activity. The intention is to enable the Post Office to set up its own manufacturing facilities to obtain supplies if, in the circumstances which I have been describing, it requires either major supplies or minor equipment which it cannot obtain from outside at a fair price, and within the time-scale that they are required.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: How does the right hon. Gentleman envisage preventing cross-subsidisation within the manufacturing concern if part of the market is repair and maintenance, for which there is a guaranteed market, and part is new work in which it is in direct competition? How can the right hon. Gentleman prevent overheads being heaped on to repair and maintenance?

Mr. Stonehouse: The Minister will be able to call for information about those activities. As the Post Office will have sharp financial objectives placed upon it, it will naturally be most unwilling to have uneconomic activities carried on either in the factories or in the procurement of the supplies which I have been describing.
I think that the Post Office will be given a dynamic and commercially objective board. There will be no anxiety for the Post Office to engage in activities which are a drain on its resources. I appreciate that in some parts of the supplying industry there may be some concern about this Clause, but I am satisfied that in all the circumstances the Clause provides the best way of meeting the requirements of the Post Office Corporation, which we expect to be fully commercial in the way it does its job. It must be able to obtain the supplies that it requires, particularly the essential equipment that it needs to meet its obligations. It must also be able to get these supplies at a fair price. It must be given the powers embodied in the Clause if it is to fulfil all the obligations put upon it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that there are many debates ahead of us on the Bill, and that reasonably brief speeches will help.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Bryan: The Postmaster-General started by saying that he intended to explain the background to the Clause. For the first five minutes of his speech he proceeded to throw a shower of irrelevant sand in our eyes in the form of investment statistics over the next few years. I should like to explain what I consider to be the background to the Clause, and I believe that it will be a background more easily recognisable by those who sat in the Committee upstairs.
I think that my explanation might possibly provide the reason why the Postmaster-General delivered his speech without his usual elan; why he adopted a rather embarrassed, shamefaced sheepish attitude. The right hon. Gentleman is short of friends. The last time he made a major speech from that Box he did so without one hon. Member on the benches behind him. In Committee his troops constantly deserted him, and time and again we had to keep a quorum.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will not be out of order if he speaks to the Question, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Bryan: Mr. Speaker, it was at that moment that I was coming to the Clause.
It was when we came to Clause 13 in Committee that the right hon. Gentleman's supporters voted against him, and we saved the situation. The right hon. Gentleman could not face that situation on the Floor of the House. We have not heard a word about Clause 13, and yet this Clause is supposed to take its place. I am sure that nobody on either side will deny that. Tucked away on page 3870 of the Notice Paper we find an Amendment to leave out Clause 13.
The right hon. Gentleman has run away from the position. He has not retired in the face of a devastating argument in debate. In fact, in Committee there was only one speech of any length, let alone of any merit, on this subject, and yet the right hon. Gentleman ran for cover at about the same speed, and against about the same scale of danger, as another Minister scurried away from the Anguillans.
Clause 7 is vitally linked with this Clause, because it is this Clause which puts the restrictions on Clause 7. One has only to look at Clause 7 to see why these restrictions are necessary. That Clause gives the most enormous powers to the Postmaster-General. It gives him the normal powers for postal services, communication services, the giro, and so on, but it also gives him power to run computers. It gives him powers about which many people do not know. It gives him the power to construct, manufacture, produce, purchase, take on hire or hire purchase, install, maintain and repair anything that is required for the purpose of the Corporation's business. It also gives power to construct and manufacture for others, to provide consultancy services, to acquire land—

Mr. Maurice Orbach: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we discussing the new Clause, or the Second Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: The Chair will call the hon. Member to order when he is out of order.

Mr. Bryan: The Clause gives the Minister power to acquire securities. It sets out the scale on which the Corporation can invest in other things. The Corporation can become almost an I.R.C. in its own right. The Clause talks about all sorts of other strange happenings, such as carrying for hire or reward passengers


in vehicles, providing hostels and houses, and making loans.
It would be fairly frightening to give those powers to any Corporation, but when they are being given to a Socialist Minister the whole situation becomes even more terrifying. Under the Bill we are losing a tremendous amount of parliamentary accountability. As the last Postmaster-General but one said, the Corporation will be "freed of the apron strings of Parliament". In other words there will be no Questions, and so on, and if this Corporation is to be presided over by a Socialist Minister we need an even closer examination of these powers than would otherwise be the case.
I think that it was the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) who was instrumental in changing Clause 1 for the old Clause 13. The hon. Gentleman quoted from "Labour and the Scientific Revolution", which said:
.. these new organisations must be ready to go beyond the research and development stage … They must be free to engage in production in their own establishments … The State, local authorities and nationalised industries must also be prepared to create undertakings in which new products and modern management techniques can be pioneered. These publicly owned or jointly owned enterprises will be particularly appropriate in those sections of British Industry where the public sector is the dominant purchaser.
Then quoting, as a number of hon. Members opposite have quoted, the last Postmaster-General but two, he said:
Unless you give the Post Office, with its vast resources and enormous rate of growth the kind of freedom and the right to enterprise now enjoyed by other nationalised industries, it is simply not going to be possible to develop its resources to the full.
From what I have read today it is absolutely obvious that some kind of safeguard against these powers was certainly required. That safeguard was provided in the Bill as it stands now by Clause 13. The great factor of that Clause is in its very first sentence:
except under an authorisation in that behalf granted by the Minister the Post Office shall not

(a) manufacture for the purposes of its business …
(b) manufacture for supply to outside persons …"

I will not go into further details except to underline that these things could be

done only under authorisation. When we debated this upstairs and this was duly passed we found it completely satisfactory. In short, the restriction on the manufacturing powers of the Post Office and its subsidiaries seemed to be contained there in a thoroughly satisfactory way. But it was the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who very often is the first to suspect things, who suspected the possibility that there was a snag in this. He raised the question with the Postmaster-General, who wrote him a long letter which was much quoted in the Committee because it took a very important part in our considerations.

Mr. Peyton: I would ask my hon. Friend whether that letter is generally available. As far as I am aware from reading the OFFICIAL REPORT it was not quoted, at any rate in full. Could my hon. Friend say whether the Minister has ever offered to make it available? It is very difficult for hon. Members on this side of the House who did not have the privilege of being on the Standing Committee to participate in the discussion when we have not the essential material in front of us.

Mr. Bryan: I am under the impression that the letter was circulated to all members of the Committee upstairs, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot go further as to what has happened.

Mr. Peyton: Would my hon. Friend read the letter?

Mr. Bryan: Since there has been a strong demand for me to read the letter out I will read the relevant passages.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House of what I said at the beginning, that this is the first of many debates on the Bill.

Mr. Bryan: I do this advisedly and after careful thought because I believe that this is a very important factor in our debate.
In his letter which was, in fact, a description of the manufacturing processes of the Post Office, the Postmaster-General said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury:
In the first place, the Post Office Factories Division, although it is primarily a research organisation, has for many years done small


scale manufacturing work in its eight factories. The total number of staff … employed on manufacturing work at the moment is about 400. The total expenditure in these factories on manufacturing, including overheads, in the last full financial year was £1½ million. There may possibly be a small expansion of this work between now and the Vesting Day of the new Corporation but in terms of value it would be unlikely to take the total above about £2 million per annum. The manufacturing work which these factories do is of a kind closely allied to their primary experience in the repair field. They make spare parts for obsolete equipment.… They do occasionally tender in competition with, and on the same basis as, outside industry for small orders for things which outside industry makes.
The right hon. Gentleman goes on in the next paragraph to speak about research at Dollis Hill and the manufacture of electronic repeaters; and he ends by saying:
We buy and supply hearing aids on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Security (of the order of £½ million worth per annum. … We also sell souvenirs at the shop in the Post Office Tower.
The whole atmosphere of the letter is shown by the way the Postmaster-General ends:
If there is any more we can do to help please do not hesitate to let me know.
But he was also hoping that this information would quieten the hon. Gentleman.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) received a similar letter on the 29th January, similarly playing down the whole manufacturing operation of the Post Office. If this was meant to pull the wool over our eyes it certainly succeeded in doing so. When it came to the debate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South, who had received these letters, said:
I had expected that I should have to say a great deal on this Clause. … But the Postmaster-General very promptly produced what I requested. The information is contained in a letter which he sent me. All members of the Committee have copies. I should like the Assistant Postmaster-General to tell his right hon. Friend how much I appreciate that. It has been exceedingly useful and it will save a great deal in debating time on the Clause.
That is precisely what it is. These two letters completely cut down the debate for these very good reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) made remarks in exactly the

same tone, but did not develop his speech further. What happened—this is why this letter is so relevant—is that the whole of the debate upstairs was cut short by what has turned out to be a subterfuge. Following that, we got the Assistant Postmaster-General—because for obviously good reasons the Postmaster-General was not present that day.
Let me quote what the Assistant Postmaster-General said, for it is very important:
The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) who opened the debate, asked for an undertaking on the Government's intention about manufacturing by the Post Office. I cannot do better than remind him of what my right hon. Friend said in the debate on Clause 7.
He quoted that at length, but on this very point the Assistant Postmaster-General said:
This is why we are taking the detailed powers in Clause 13.
Before we agree to a substantial extension, the Government would give the most careful thought to all the factors involved. It is these repercussions of industry which made it impossible for the Government at this juncture to accept the New Clause 1.
What happened to those consultations?
The Government's function could be reduced by that new Clause to consultation, whereas we believe that in this case the decision must remain with the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 30th January, 1969; c. 528, 553–4.]
What has happened to those considerations, which seemed so powerful to the Assistant Postmaster-General on that day?
We come to the new Clause which, although one would not be aware of it from the Postmaster-General's speech, is the replacement of, the surrender, to the whole of Clause 13. The new Clause is half the length of the old and has less than half of its reassurance. The key difference between the two is that whereas we talked of authorisation in Clause 13, this time the Clause starts with the words:
Consultation with the Minister by the Post Office shall be requisite before it or a subsidiary …
In fact, there is always to be consultation. What kind of safeguard can that possibly be in comparison with the Clause 13 which we passed upstairs? It really means that the Post Office can do exactly what it likes. What is the Postmaster-General going to do if, after consultation, the Post Office says, "We do not mind.


We shall make something if we want to do so"? If I am wrong in assuming this, I would like to know from the Postmaster-General what is the reason for this change.
4.30 p.m.
In his assurances to us the Postmaster-General said at one stage:
It certainly is not the intention that the Post Office should be engaging, in its own right and separate from the main activities of the Post Office, in a whole range of activities which take it well out of the spheres which we discussed under Clause 7(1)."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 12th December, 1968; c. 297.]
How can the right hon. Gentleman give that assurance any more, because the Post Office will make what it wants, no matter what assurances the right hon. Gentleman gives to us. So the new Clause is in every way unsatisfactory to us.
Subsection (a) says:
the approval of the Minister may be given for the purposes of this subsection subject to such conditions (if any) as he may deem fit.
Will the Minister give us an idea of under what conditions he thinks he may deem things fit? Subsection (3) says:
The Minister shall publish, in such manner as he thinks fit, particulars of any approval given under the last foregoing subsection by him, and shall send them to the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress.
Why is this information not to be sent to both Houses of Parliament?
As you said, Mr. Speaker, many hon. Members will want to speak on the Clause. The Postmaster-General is no doubt pleased with the reaction that will come from the Government benches to his surrender. The P.O.E.U. pamphlet says:
The Union had gained its point by the P.M.G.'s concession re Clause 13 of the Bill; it must now campaign strongly to persuade the P.O. to make maximum use of their new manufacturing powers … The Union urges the P.O.:

(a) to extend its repair facilities;
(b) to build new factories in the development areas;
(c) to purchase a controlling interest in existing firms.

The Union suggests that the P.O. should concentrate on the manufacture of electronic equipment.
The Postmaster-General has at last got some friends, but he has certainly chosen a not very gallant way to buy them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Tom Boardman: On a point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a point which I had intended to raise on the Amendments to Clause 7. However, as Clause 7 and new Clause 1 are so closely linked, it is perhaps right that I should raise it now and that you should direct me on whether this is the appropriate time.
The point which I wish to raise is how these new powers—they are new powers, because the Postmaster-General made it clear that the new Clause, coupled with Clause 13, would give him new powers to enter into new business—can be reconciled with the Long Title of the Bill. The Long Title refers to the abolition of
the office of master of the Post Office".
There is nothing there to do with manufacturing.
Then the Long Title speaks of distributing
the business conducted by the holder thereof amongst authorities constituted for the purpose and
the making of
provision consequential on the abolition of that office".
There is nothing there to do with the new business of manufacturing.
Then the Long Title says:
and the distribution of the business so conducted; to amend, replace or repeal certain provisions of the enactments relating to posts, telegraphs and savings banks".
Again, there is nothing there to do with the new business of manufacturing; nor does the Amendment of the law relating to stamp duty or the disposal of interest in the shares of Cable and Wireless Limited have anything to do with the new business of manufacturing.
If I rightly understood the Postmaster-General to say that he required these new powers to carry on the new business and additional business of manufacturing facilities, how can this be reconciled with the Long Title? Perhaps you will give me your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether this is the right time to raise this point and, if it is, allow me to develop my argument.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I am obliged for the detailed manner in which the hon. Gentleman has


raised his point of order. The Clause is in order and is in compliance with the Long Title of the Bill.

Mr. Driberg: I agree with two things, at any rate, that have so far been said from the other side. I agree strongly with the point which was made about accountability. Although I think that any prolonged discussion of accountability would not be in order on this new Clause, I hope that on new Clause 6 right hon. and hon. Members opposite who are interested in accountability will vote for that new Clause, to which some of my hon. Friends and myself have put our names.
Secondly, I agree very much also with the—I suppose—semantic point made on a point of order earlier by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who queried this peculiarily uncouth and ugly locution, "its". I am slightly ashamed to say that I included the locution in my own sub-Amendment to the new Clause—which has not been selected—because, in my innocence, I thought that it must be some obligatory law of Parliamentary draftsmanship nowadays. I am very glad if it is not, because I agree entirely with the hon. Member who thought it appalling.
Apart from that, I do not agree with anything which has been said by hon. Members so far. I am not at all as happy about my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General as hon. Members opposite seem to think that we on this side should be. Of course, the new Clause is a considerable improvement on Clause 13, which will vanish in due course; but to my mind it does not go nearly far enough. It is still hedged about with apologetic qualifications. I thought that my right hon. Friend was also a bit too apologetic in his speech. He should not be frightened of the stage army opposite. It is not his business to reassure them or to defer to the evil outside interests of these great monopoly or quasi-monopolistic corporations of which he is, unfortunately, the best contomer.
It is not the function of the party to which my right hon. Friend and I belong, and it ought not to be the function of any Socialist Government with guts, if I may quote a phrase used eloquently last

week from these benches by a newcomer, to reassure these massive industrial giants which have been exploiting the people for so long. It is our function either to take them over into common ownership, or, if necessary, gradually to squeeze them out of existence. The more that the Post Office can do in that way, by manufacturing its own goods and the goods that it can supply to other people, in accordance with the half-hearted, hedged-about proposals in the new Clause, the better. None of us on these benches loves G.E.C. and Co. as hon. Members opposite naturally do: that is their métier. It is not ours. I beg the Postmaster-General to be a little more defiant of the interests represented opposite and less apologetic.
In any case, even pragmatically these giant industries which he appears to be so anxious to appease are not doing their job effectively. Much of the chaos which we all know exists in the telephone service, for instance, may be attributable to the very inadequate and unsatisfactory record of delivery dates by these supposedly efficient giants of private industry.
That is all I want to say. I wanted to make only a short speech, in accordance with Mr. Speaker's request; and I hope that all other hon. Members who speak will make short speeches. Inadequate as it is, we support the new Clause as a slight gesture in the right direction.

Mr. Peyton: My joy at hearing the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) supporting me in one Amendment which I shall come to in a moment was somewhat diluted by the further content of his speech.
We are in some difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) referred very properly to two letters which were sent to members of the Standing Committee and which, we are told by my hon. Friend, considerably and substantially influenced the course of discussion in Committee.
I have always objected to communications by Ministers to individual Members without their being widely circulated. I accept that the Minister did his best for the Standing Committee. But what about the House? A number of us did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee and our enjoyment of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Howden was tempered


by our not having an essential document before us. Ministers should be careful when circulating documents to committees to ensure that those documents find a place on the record so that others who subsequently take part in a discussion on the same point may be fully versed in what has gone before.
My hon. Friend the Member for Howden used some fairly strong words. He said that this manoeuvre had pulled the wool over the eyes of members of the Standing Committee. He went on to denounce it as a subterfuge. That brought not the slightest reaction, physical or mental, from the Postmaster-General, or the Assistant Postmaster-General, which was very odd. Even the Government react slightly when faced with subterfuges of this kind, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was so heavily weighed down by his conscience that, clearly, he was confessing that an answer was not available.
I pass to a remark which the Postmaster-General made. He prophesied that the Post Office would provide a tremendously successful communications system. My experience on the telephone this morning in trying to make one or two local calls leaves me with a feeling that the right hon. Gentleman was talking of the future. I only hope that his prophecy will be fulfilled.

Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a lot of telephone equipment is still on order and is not being supplied by the manufacturers whom he is apparently supporting?

Mr. Peyton: For the hon. Gentleman's benefit, may I point out that I am not supporting anybody. I am dealing with the Clause. If he wants to engage in an argument, I suppose that I should go outside and try to inform myself of the situation from the manufacturers who are so criticised by the hon. Gentleman. I have a feeling that they may have some reply to make on their own behalf. For instance, they might allege that ordering had not be carried out efficiently and that the forward planning was not adequate. I did not propose to go into that point. The Postmaster-General clearly said that there was fault on both sides. That seems to take the rug from under the feet of the hon. Gentleman.
The Postmaster-General said that the powers in the new Clause were simply reserve powers. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Howden said: we should be very careful before giving such powers to Socialist Ministers. When they say, "We shall not use them", our natural reaction should not be sleepily to lean back and say, "Have them on the basis that you will not use them". If they do not wish to use them, they should not have them.

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Gentleman must understand that it is proposed to give these reserve powers to the Post Office Corporation and not to the Minister. That is the whole point of the new Clause.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Peyton: I understand that. One of the Minister's famous sentences is that the Corporation will be freed from the apron strings of Parliament. How much more careful and jealous should we be of conferring such reserve powers on a Corporation over which, admittedly, Parliament will have abdicated a great deal of control?
I very much regret that the Postmaster-General has not seen fit to put in the Bill the limitations on these reserve powers which one might expect. One of my Amendments proposes that the approval of the Minister shall be obtained before
the Post Office … constructs, manufactures or produces … things of any kind to an extent substantially greater than that to which the Postmaster-General constructed, manufactured or produced, for the corresponding purpose …
The necessity to obtain the Minister's approval would provide some safeguard before the Post Office exercised the powers given in subsection (1) of the new Clause.
The Postmaster-General said that the Post Office would be unwilling to undertake manufacture unless it was sorely pressed to do so. One of the main anxieties of many of my hon. Friends is that the pressures on nationalised industries are not as sore or as heavy as those on private industry. It is easy for a statutory corporation of this kind, with the encouragement of a complacent Minister, to increase its activities to an unhealthy and dangerous extent.
The Postmaster-General referred to the sharp financial objectives put before the


Post Office. It is constantly said by Government Departments that the financial objectives put before nationalised industries are sharp and very burdensome. I do not believe, and I have never believed—this is one reason why I oppose the system of nationalisation—that it is possible to find a form of discipline to take the place of the pressure of shareholders. The Government may say that it is inadequate, but it is a form of healthy pressure on privately-owned companies which is totally lacking in nationalised industries. The sharp financial objectives about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke will not cut very deep.
I will not weary the House by dealing at length—[Interruption.] I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach) wishes to intervene. I congratulate him on the splendid way in which he chooses to advance the passage of the Bill. However, it is not normally considered to be a successful way of intervening.

Mr. Orbach: I cannot congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way he is advancing his case.

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged.
It does not seem to have dawned on the hon. Gentleman or the Government that it is they who have to make the case. So far, they have totally failed to make the case for this objectionable Bill. Although I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention, and realise that he always does his best, it is kind to say that he has not made a very notable contribution to the expedition—

Mr. Orbach: I rose to speak after the speech of the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan). I hope that I shall be called during the debate.

Mr. Peyton: So do I. I was commenting only on the hon. Gentleman's intervention in my speech, which I recognise was as civil as he could make it.
Subsection (1) requires only consultation, which can mean anything or nothing. All that the Post Office is obliged to do is seek the Minister's views, which it may then totally disregard. Consultation provisions of this kind should not be written into Statutes when

they are so meaningless. The Minister's approval is the minimum which should reasonably be required before such an extension of the Post Office's powers.
A matter which brings me into a short period of cordiality with the hon. Member for Barking is the phrase in line 2, "a subsidiary of its". The House should sometimes pause to contemplate the revolting things which it passes into legislation. This is one of the nastiest and most offensive phrases. I asked Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, whether he would permit a Division on this point. I cannot remember his exact adjective, but he said that he could not, unless something very dramatic occurred, on a drafting Amendment. I regret that, because if the Minister cannot give way on a point like this, that is an obstinate defence of the totally intolerable.
This phrase recurs a number of times in the Bill and I hope that the Minister will show some regard for the English language and a desire to avoid this filthy cacophony of language, that he will accept the Amendment and assure us that he will substitute something less offensive wherever else the phrase occurs. I see no reason why the English language should be constantly dirtied by this kind of treatment by Ministers.
Most of the other Amendments hang on the first. As to the phrase in line 22, referring to the Minister publishing "in such manner as he thinks fit", why should he not just "publish"? Those words, if they mean anything, are an excuse for him to do anything, with no one else being the judge of the adequacy of the publication. I see considerable objection to Ministers being made the judges of their own actions. A simply duty to publish would be sufficient and I hope that the Minister will agree, on reflection, that those words could be left out.
I repeat the main objection, which will be echoed by others of my hon. Friends—this is a marked extension of Post Office powers over those given in the original Bill. Without going into the question of whether, at this late stage, the extension accords with the Long Title, I do not feel that the Minister has done anything to justify it. I hope that the House will throw out the new Clause.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: It is known to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that members of our party


vary a great deal in their zeal to carry out Clause Four of our Constitution:
To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry … upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange …
In consequence of this continuous progressive discussion in our movement, and nowhere else, we have evolved ideas as to the way in which we should proceed to carry out this historic mission. Part of that is that we would not expect overnight takeovers of giant capitalist monopolistic enterprises, but we would expect, in enactments of the Government, developments along that road.
This is why members of the Post Office unions were a little dismayed when the Clause connected with this matter was somewhat watered down. They have written to hon. Members, on this side at least, expressing that dismay. I have received letters from constituents who are members of the Post Office Engineering Union, concerned about their future and the possibilities of a Tory Postmaster-General running down some of the workshops in which they are employed. They will be pleased, even if the new Clause is not quite so dynamic as was hoped, that it is coming into being.
This is a classic political discussion. Atlhough it has, so far, been conducted in barbed language, it is a Socialist versus anti-Socialist discussion. The House and the public should be reminded that the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) would qualify to let it be known that he has substantial interests in private enterprise. Since our backgrounds are considerably different, as well as our political education, which stems from many of these considerations—both philosophical and material—it is not surprising that we take a different view. Some of his considerable interests in private enterprise were outlined by my right hon. Friend in Standing Committee on 28th November, 1968, so I will not refer to them in detail; they are there if anyone cares to look them up.
The same hon. Gentleman, thinking, I suppose, that he was making a substantial criticism of the Minister, gave us a quotation—I do not know whether it was from a union journal—which said that the P.O.E.U. was thinking in terms of the extension of publicly-owned enterprises

within the service of the Post Office in what the union calls development areas.
5.0 p.m.
I have previously raised with the Prime Minister the possibility of establishing public enterprises in areas where private enterprise is shy to go. That would enable us to utilise workers who are becoming redundant as coal and other industries are run down in consequence of the advance of technology. Many of these workers find it difficult, if not impossible, to transfer their homes to the South. In any event, we do not want the whole population to move to the South of England. We want to see the redeployment of industry, and I support measures to that end.
I am not opposed to assisting private enterprise to establish itself in certain parts of the country which need industry. For example, Northern Ireland would be an ideal place for the establishment of private industries, particularly since I believe that the difficulties there are economic rather than religious. Why not establish one or more Post Office factories in Northern Ireland if private enterprise will not go there? Certainly, private enterprise is failing the nation because it is not delivering the goods which, for example, the Post Office services require.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that private enterprise, in the shape of Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd., has a factory in Northern Ireland employing about 8,000 people?

Mr. Bidwell: I am delighted to know that. Many more such factories should be established there. But if private enterprise is not sufficiently enterprising to do that, public enterprise should be encouraged to play a larger part of the establishment of new factories.
The Minister need not be shy about the new Clause, for I assure him that he will get major support for it from my hon. Friends and me. One thing that unites this side of the House is its opposition to Tory humbug, and for that reason we welcome the Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport (Knutsford): I will not detain the House for long, although I am glad of this opportunity to speak following the hon. Member for Southall


(Mr. Bidwell). What is the object of the Bill—and one can take any Clause one likes?

Mr. Driberg: No.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Is the hon. Gentleman ill? Does he want a pill?

Mr. Driberg: I said that the hon. Gentleman cannot take any Clause he likes at the moment.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: The hon. Gentleman obviously still has the remains of his lunch inside his face. I could not hear a word he said.

Mr. Driberg: I am sorry if I was inaudible, although the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remark was uncalled for and untrue. I was referring to his statement that he could take any Clause he liked. He cannot. He can take only new Clause 1 at the moment.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: The hon. Gentleman is no doubt raising quite a good point. If he will do me the justice of listening to my speech I am sure that the facts will gradually dawn upon him like a timid flower being kissed by the sun. I assure him that the benefit of lending me his ear will emerge. I will continue slowly, easily and gently on all six cylinders to the end of my speech, I hope without interruption.
The Bill will give the Post Office immense power to carry out almost any business it likes. The hon. Member for Southall said that it was another step towards the aim of Clause Four of the Labour Party's constitution, which is designed to nationalise all means of production, distribution and exchange.

Mr. Bidwell: It is a teeny weeny step in that direction.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Be it teeny weeny or itsy bitsy, what will be the result? The small businessman and, in some instances, the larger businessman in private enterprise will gradually be killed off, which is the object of the exercise. I recall that when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in the Budget debate of 1968 that that Budget would kill the small businessman, there was a chorus of applause from hon. Gentlemen opposite and the remark, "A good thing, too", from

the Government Front Bench did not go unnoticed.
When addressing a meeting in his constituency of Stockport, South—perhaps it was another constituency where it does not matter so much—the hon. Gentleman who represents those unfortunate people there (Mr. Orbach) told small businessmen—if I am wrong I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will correct me; I have his words in black and white printed in an itsy bitsy book—
The small shopkeeper is wasteful and you must go. I am very sorry for you, but you must go.
Did the hon. Gentleman say that?

Mr. Orbach: I did.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself.
We see why hon. Gentlemen opposite want to extend the powers of the Post Office. There is another reason; they want to decrease the gigantic losses of the Post Office. Is it right that a tremendous monopoly of this type should have such gigantic losses, particularly when one bears in mind the way in which the prices of its services have been increased?
I need not burden the House with examples. Some years ago one could post a letter in my constituency using a 1d. stamp and it would arrive in London from Knutsford that night. Now, using a 4d. stamp, one is lucky to have one's letter delivered by the end of the week. Using a 5d. stamp, it may be delivered the next day, although a great many letters never arrive at all.
Why cannot the Post Office stand on its own feet? One of my hon. Friends gave the example of the American telephone and telegraph services, which are the finest in the world. If hon. Members go outside the Chamber and pick up a telephone in the Lobby they will see how long it takes to contact the switchboard. They will also note how many wrong numbers they get, so wasting their time in having to contact the operator. We have a disgraceful service in this country. I have had the advantage of speaking with many Americans on this subject. They constantly tell me that one of the worst things that strikes them about this country is our disgraceful telephone service.
What will be the result of turning the Post Office into a corporation, containing


a number of morons who have never run a business in their lives? These people will not be able to be booted off the board by shareholders who have money in the company. They will have the Patronage Secretary and the power of the Government behind them to keep their office seats warm while they are drawing gigantic salaries.
The object of the Bill is to move towards nationalising all means of production, distribution and exchange. The next move of hon. Gentlemen opposite will be to kill the small and larger businessman, and so destroy private enterprise. I bring my brief, conciliatory remarks to an end by pointing out that the Post Office will become, if this is possible, even worse than British Railways, with their dangerous and dirty trains.

Mr. Orbach: The House will forgive me if I do not follow either the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) or the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). Both made a contribution to hilarity, but very little to our consideration of new Clause 1.
I wish to take to task the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan), who was a little ungracious in attacking hon. Members on this side of the House who had to depart from the Committee to attend to their correspondence. The hon. Member is able to get other people to do that for him, but my hon. Friends on occasion had to be out of the Committee Room. They were, however, present whenever it was necessary for them to be present. The hon. Member was a frequent non-attender of Committee sittings.

Mr. Bryan: I do not think there is the slightest doubt that attendance from our side of the House was very much better than from the other side. Otherwise, why did we constantly have to keep a quorum although we have to answer letters just the same as hon. Members opposite do?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. Hon. Members are pursuing the Committee proceedings too far on this new Clause.

Mr. Orbach: This was started by the hon. Member for Howden, not by me. He referred to an occasion when the bells rang and the Committee room immediately filled.

Mr. Bryan: Time and again when hon. Members opposite wanted a quorum we had to warn them.

Mr. Orbach: There was no need for that. Hon. Members opposite could have walked out if they had wanted to do so. Obviously, they wanted the Bill to proceed as rapidly as possible, and for that all hon. Members should be grateful.
The hon. Member for Howden, after paying tribute to himself and his hon. Friend, started attacking our side. He said that he would deal with the background to the Clause, but, of course, he did not touch on the background. I propose to do so, as I did in Committee. The hon. Member also read a letter and suggested that it dealt with reserve powers that the Postmaster-General wanted for the future, but it did not. It dealt with the existing manufacturing position.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: At that stage the Bill did not propose to extend the existing position, but now it does so.

Mr. Orbach: It does so to a very slight extent. If the hon. and gallant Member looks at Clause 13 and this Clause, he will see that there is a slight change in emphasis. I considered that Clause 13 ought to have gone further. This Clause goes a little further, but not quite so far as I would have liked. I am prepared to accept it, but I do not think it is the ideal solution to deal with the situation.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) spoke about something of which he could not be aware. We were not speaking about manufacturing powers which might be available to the Corporation if this Bill became an Act. My right hon. Friend was replying to questions raised in Committee and said that this was the present position in regard to manufacturing within the Post Office at present. On that score, there was some attempt to mislead the Committee; hon. Members in the Committee were, in fact, mislead. The hon. Member said there were other reasons why manufacturers did not have manufacturing capacity and why they could not produce the telephone equipment required by the Post Office, but he was not aware of the reasons.
New Clause 1 is refreshing. The first Postmaster-General after Labour came to power gave orders that telephone equipment was to be supplied by manufacturers. My right hon. Friend is now giving consideration to the whole question of manufacturing should it be necessary in future. I will give the House some historical information. I speak as one who has been engaged in this industry and associated with it from a manufacturer's point of view as long perhaps as any hon. Member. I am not a director of any particular firm, but I made clear in Committee that I was an export consultant to Plesseys following my engagement for many years as export consultant to Automatic Telephones and Installations, which was taken over by Plesseys.
5.15 p.m.
I received no advice from them, from a manufacturer, or manufacturers' association, or the trade unions about what I should say on this Bill. I think that it was well known by those who have had any connection with the industry that for over 10 years no new orders were placed for major telephone equipment by the Postmaster-General of the day. Sole responsibility for that lies on the Tory Party because hon. Members opposite believed in the status quo.
They wanted things to stay as they were and were afraid of being disturbed. This was at a time when engineers in the industry believed that it was possible within five or 10 years to have the electronic exchange system operating. In the meantime, there had been invented and there was being marketed abroad an intermediary system between the Strowger system, used over much of the country, and the cross-bar system and halfway to the electronic system. The Post Office was urged time and again to purchase cross-bar equipment, not only because it was needed for internal communications and our own equipment was 30, 40 or 50 years old and was going to seed, but because to get export orders we had to have a home base.
The Post Office, to the discredit of the Tory Party, refused to give any orders for cross-bar equipment. Not until my right hon. Friend's predecessor became Postmaster-General were orders placed for cross-bar and electronic exchange

equipment in this country. No one on the Tory side who thinks that he believes in enterprise should forget that. This new Clause gives reserve powers to my right hon. Friend. He does not say, "I will wipe G.E.C., English Electric, Standard Telephones and Plesseys off the map" He says that if for any particular part of the equipment required for the Post Office existing manufacturers are not able to assist we shall have the power, subject to the Minister having consultation with the Corporation, to manufacture such equipment as we need so as to phase the end equipment within the manufacturing circuit.
My right hon. Friend is perfectly right to ask for those reserve powers, not because manufacturers will let him down. I do not agree with any hon. Friends who think that manufacturers in this country are anything but enterprising and desirous of getting orders. Naturally, they need to satisfy their shareholders, of whom I say unashamedly I am one, but they want to remain as manufacturers in their big industries as long as they can. Apart from the possibility, which the Postmaster-General outlined, of mergers having to take place and the Post Office Corporation being faced with a private enterprise monopoly, which I do not envisage in the near future, there are other dangers. Some hon. Members opposite will be prepared to admit that.
One of them said with great glee that Standard Telephones had opened a factory in Ulster. Why did not a British manufacturer open a factory there? Standard Telephones, which is an American company, has factories everywhere under the name of I.T.T. [Interruption.] What British manufacturer has opened a factory in Ulster?

Captain Orr: I understood Plessey.

Mr. Orbach: It has one in Eire, which is a foreign country.

Captain Orr: And in Ulster.

Mr. Orbach: We have factories all over the place, but I know of none in Ulster. I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong. I have visited the factory outside Dublin, at Swords, but I have not visited any Plessey factory in Ulster. Perhaps I shall be fired tomorrow because I have made a misstatement here that does not help the organisation.
Let me make quite clear what I want. I want to stop what the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford referred to—

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: rose—

Mr. Kenneth Baker: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Only one hon. Gentleman at a time.

Mr. Orbach: The hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford compared the telephone service neglected by his party for over 10 years with that in the United States, which is run by Bell Telephone or its subsidiaries. I spend a great deal of my vacations in the United States, because most of my family are there. In the United States I did what I do here. I called the telephone service and asked to be rung at 6 o'clock the following morning because I had to be at John Kennedy Airport by 8 a.m. and wanted a shave and breakfast first. I was rung at 6 o'clock the next morning, but my hosts had to pay 1½ dollars for that call. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Gentleman did not pay 5s.?"] It is not 5s. The hon. Gentleman has no understanding of the charges made in the United States for the telephone service there, and of the fact that run side-by-side with it, it has the worst postal service probably in the world.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Gentleman has given great credit to the American telephone system, which is privately-owned, and now condemns the American postal service, which is Government-owned. Does not he think that there is a relationship between the fact that the American telephone system is privately-owned and the postal service is Government-owned?

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: rose—

Mr. Orbach: I shall give way to the hon. and gallant Gentleman eventually But I am making a brief statement.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) said that I should compare two industries, one privately-owned and a monopoly, and one owned by the State. If he knew anything at all about the United States, he would know that all the jobs in the Post Office are within the command of the Postmaster-General, who was the chief heeler of any political party at any time. With four years' experience in the United States, where I

have participated in the elections, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that although political appointments to judgeships and other local offices used to be the rule, the only patronage powers apart from those of the President are those of the Postmaster-General, who appoints all the Post Office staff throughout the land.
Even a sub-postmaster must be a good member of the Democratic Party or Republican Party, depending on which is in power. At one time this was also true of teachers, and my wife had to join the Democratic Party to obtain a teaching job in New York.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is very interesting, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks more to the new Clause.

Mr. Orbach: I think that what I have said is sufficient to impress upon the House when there is a dialogue between the two sides as to private enterprise and public enterprise, that private enterprise as exemplified by the Tory Party does not exist, and never existed. For hon. Members opposite, private enterprise is maintaining what they have, doing as little with it as they can, establishing that something is traditionally done in a certain way, and saying that therefore it is best, whereas in this case we have a little of the dynamism of which we spoke in 1964 spreading in another sphere.
I believe it to be absolutely essential that the Post Office Corporation shall have the power to manufacture relays, transistors and any components it may require to see that there is no stoppage in the final product required by the consumer, the exchange equipment or telephone instruments about which my hon. Friend is so concerned.
I strongly hope that the House will agree with the Minister and accept the Clause.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: In one respect at least I can agree with the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach). I am certain that no one—not his trade union, his employers, nor any branch of the British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers' Association—put him up to make his speech. I do not know whether they put him up to make a different speech, but in any case it is clear that


it would be a dangerous thing to issue the hon. Gentleman with riding orders.
I want to draw the attention of the House to what I consider to be a very grave defect. My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) described it as a subterfuge, but I think that it is a good deal worse. When Clause 13 was discussed in the Committee it was not given the treatment that it would have had if it had appeared as it is now as the new Clause. I do not think that it is any coincidence that in moving the Clause the Postmaster-General did not at the same time draw attention to Amendment No. 60, which my hon. Friend found lurking at page 3870 of the Notice Paper, and which says simply, "leave out Clause 13".
It should have been made very clear that the omission of Clause 13 was the price exacted from the right hon. Gentleman by his friends. On the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", five members of the right hon. Gentleman's party voted in the "No" lobby in Committee on 30th January. He himself was not present. The Assistant Postmaster-General, the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary and the Whip voted in favour of the Clause standing part, and we took that as meaning that the Government had decided to abide by the Clause they had put down. I should like to quote what my hon. Friend the Member for Howden said in summing up for the Opposition. He said:
To us, the letter dated 29th January from the Postmaster-General is of the greatest possible importance. It gives us assurances, spelt out in the plainest possible terms, which we would have sought in this debate. Frankly, our Amendments might have been phrased in a slightly different way had we had this letter before us when we were drafting them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 30th January, 1969; c. 559.]
The net result was that this very important Clause was got rid of in two hours in Committee when, if it had been phrased as new Clause 1 is now phrased, it would have taken a great deal longer in discussion and we should have wanted to tie the right hon. Gentleman to the terms of the letter.
5.30 p.m.
This, to me, is an abuse of the processes of the House. The Minister should not take back in this way a Clause which

he has put down and for which he had official support of his party, through his Whip, his Parliamentary Private Secretary and the Assistant Postmaster-General. The right hon. Gentleman has taken the Clause back in private. He has treated the House with contempt. Despite what my hon. Friend has said, I hope that we shall vote against new Clause 1 in order to show our total disapproval of the way in which it has been introduced.

Mr. William Molloy: The contributions of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'AvigdorGoldsmid) are usually well worth listening to because of his wide experience both as a politician and in matters connected with the subject of the Bill. But I part company with him on the unjustified and almost abusive attack he made on my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General towards the end of his speech. If, in moments of partisan feeling, we hurl such epithets about, then, in practice, we are saying that decisions can only be made by Members of this House without listening to anyone outside.
I am not suggesting that any pressures have been put on my right hon. Friend but, in a democracy, it is right and proper for people to put pressure on Ministers, Members of Parliament, councillors and anyone else they have elected to carry out their will. Indeed, even if they have not subscribed to the election of certain Ministers, Members of Parliament or councillors, that does not mean to say that they have no right to exert such pressure. On that aspect of political philosophy I part company with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bryan: No less than three hon. Members on this side said in their speeches in Committee that they would cut down the length of the debate following the assurance they had received. Not all of the three are fools, although I am one of them. Undoubtedly we were deceived. There is not the slightest doubt of it. There was no move by the Postmaster-General or by the Assistant Postmaster-General to put us right in this respect.

Mr. Molloy: Hon. Members opposite want it both ways. Towards the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Walsall. South pointed out what had happened in the Division. He said that this had


given him a certain message. It appears that he has more prescience and understanding than the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan).
Whilst, to a certain extent, I compliment my right hon. Friend, I am sorry that the drafting of new Clause 1 is not of such a nature as to fill the benches opposite with hon. Members seething with frustrated anger because he proposes a full-blooded Socialist measure. I say that after acknowledging that we are talking about a serious issue—the telecommunications of the future.
It would have been much better if my right hon. Friend had drafted new Clause 1 in a way which would have been so repugnant to hon. Members opposite that it would have filled their benches and led the Opposition Front Bench to draft an Amendment which would equally have filled these benches. If the Opposition Front Bench are paying heed to the fifth-rate vaudeville performance of the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), they should be bitterly opposing new Clause 1. The whole concept of this Bill held by the two hon. Members is that none of it should take place.
If the Conservative Party had cared to carry out what it declares to be its philosophy, then, during its 13 years of office, it could have denationalised the Post Office, not to mention the coal mines, the railways and other publicly-owned industries. But in fact the Conservatives are as half-hearted in their philosophy as, I regret to say, my right hon. Friend is in his. It would be better for this House and for politics in general if we made it clear to people at large that there is and should be a massive difference between the philosophies of the two sides of the House.
In this so-called "mixed" approach, it is the Conservative Party that comes off best because, even when it is in power, when something goes wrong with a publicly-owned industry it has not got the guts to denationalise it but it can still criticise it. As has been said, its philosophy has been one of slow strangulation. The neglect which the Post Office suffered under the Conservative Government was enormous.
I am happy and proud to be associated with the members of the Post Office En-

gineering Union, who are so proud of their craft and their industry and of what they are trying to do for the country. They are not seeking shares in the new set-up. They are not seeking some method of getting a large private nest-egg in it. They want to see it an efficient and worth-while organisation which will make its contribution to uplifting the standard of life for everyone in the country. Here again, there is a fundamental difference between the philosophy of hon. Members opposite and ours It is worth reiterating that it would be much better to make it clear where both sides stand in our legislation on these issues.
I have grave apprehensions that much of what has happened up to now with the Post Office might be repeated in the new organisation. One of the difficult features of the public ownership of the Post Office has been that it has had to do many things which are not directly remunerative. It has provided the basic essentials and then has allowed private enterprise to nip in and cream off the profits. We say that is wrong. We do not have to convince hon. Members opposite because they do not believe it anyway. But it is a tragedy that we have to make the case to my right hon. Friend that the things which we said in Opposition are still true now that we are in Government and that we should carry out these things in a much more forceful and Socialist manner, for we have a mandate to do so.
I should prefer to have the support of the Post Office engineers and other Post Office workers than the support of any shareholders in any form of private enterprise, because the fundamental difference between them is that, as trade unionists, the former are concerned about their industry and its contribution to our nation and to the millions of others not directly affected.
For too long in public ownership we have made a grave error. Private enterprise has left organisations almost moribund, for example the mines and the railways. Now we are doing it again. We have seen the ignorance displayed by hon. Gentlemen opposite about the modernisation of the Post Office—if it was not ignorance, if it was done deliberately, then it was worse. We have to come along and pick it up. Time and again we have made the mistake of not doing


the job thoroughly in a Socialist manner. Instead we have left some elements free, as if we have a responsibility to private enterprise to provide some sustenance for it by sucking at the teats of the State to survive. This is wrong. Hon. Members opposite should realise that if they take the reins of office again there will be no Post Office, no Postmaster-General, the whole lot will be given to private enterprise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach) has spoken about the Post Office services in New York State being absolutely appalling, while the telephone service is first-class. The telephones are run by private industry, the Post Office by the State, and we all know the feeling of United States administrators towards any form of State ownership. They have committed the same crime over there, their postal service is something that they dare not allow private enterprise to take over. Yet the cost of the ordinary telephone subscription is rising and is enormous. A great deal of money has been ploughed back. In the State of New York alone those who now control the telephone system have ploughed more back in one year for research than the Tories did in the last 10 years when they held office and were operating a national Post Office.
We are talking about a new era in mankind, and there is a direct relationship between new Clause 1 and this new era. The choice is simply whether there shall be large monopolies of immense power within the private sector running these concerns, or whether they should be run by the people for the people, by Parliament. This is a great issue and in such an area as telephone communications it would be a grave disaster if the bankers and private entrepreneurs of the future could completely control the industry. The extension of public ownership is right for me because I am a Socialist, but in the interests of mankind there ought to be an international organisation for controlling such an industry.
While I am not 100 per cent. happy with new Clause 1, I am thankful for small mercies and glad that my right hon. Friend has sought to delete the old Clause 13 and to substitute this new one. I hope that before long that we can do something better to move towards this

opportunity of genuine and real public ownership which has proved itself to be of supreme benefit to the people.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: Hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken the opportunity to philosophise about this new Clause, and there is nothing to complain about on that, because it points to one of the basic differences between the two sides. I do not complain that the Postmaster-General has decided that he will give the Bill more teeth, but I do complain about the way in which it has been done. Far from the Postmaster-General being guilty of subterfuge, I think he has simply been got at. We have only to look at the record to see the proof of this. If we take the discussions on Clause 13 in Standing Committee it will be apparent that there was only one Amendment.
We made it clear that not only were we satisfied with the letter that the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to send to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), but we were happy with what the Assistant Postmaster-General had said. It is important to see what happened after that Amendment had been discussed and the Question was put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Only the payroll vote on the Government side voted for Clause 13. All the other Government supporters voted against the Clause being in the Bill. It was only because hon. Members on this side supported the right hon. Gentleman that the Clause was carried. Obviously there must have been a very good reason for my hon. Friends to support the right hon. Gentleman.
That reason was that we thought he had been very conciliatory, that he had accepted the position of the Post Office with respect to manufacture, that the Post Office would still be prepared to go into manufacture if it felt that someone was capable of twisting its arm. We would expect a large organisation to be like this. Now, on Report we find this new Clause.
I have a number of questions. The Postmaster-General said that these were only reserve powers. Unfortunately where manufacture for its own purposes is concerned, the new Corporation will be required only to "consult" the new


Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Yet where it has to manufacture to supply someone else it has to get "approval". Why should the Corporation be given virtually carte blanche to enter into manufacture of any kind? What does "consultation" with the Minister really mean? In some cases it has been ruled that if a letter is written and enough time is allowed for a reply this constitutes consultation, and this could be the attitude of the new Corporation. At present we are able to ask the Postmaster-General questions in the House, but this will not be so when there is a Corporation, which will be as difficult to get at as British Rail.

Mr. Driberg: If new Clause 6 is accepted then it will be possible to get at the Minister.

Mr. Mawby: We shall come to Clause 6 later. The new Clause has a laudable objective and, if sufficient thought were given to it, it may be that it would take away the worries of hon. Members about not being able to get at the Minister to ask questions which they consider should be raised on the Floor of the House. I hope that the debate on new Clause 6 will be interesting and that the hon. Gentleman will be successful.
I cannot understand why, if approval is necessary for the manufacture of supplies for someone else, manufacturers will be able to manufacture for their own purposes merely after consultation. If the new Clause remains as it is, even the new Minister of Post and Telecommunications may have his arm twisted. The Post Office Corporation could decide to lay down expensive equipment to produce products for its own use. On working out the economics it may be found that to get repayment on the capital employed it is necessary to produce the product in much greater numbers, which could be disposed of only by selling them to someone else. If the Minister refused approval for the manufacture for sale to someone else the operation would then become uneconomic. This would not be anything new for a nationalised industry, but the Minister would have to take this matter fully into account, and he would no longer be master of the situation.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are continually arguing about Clause 4 and whether or not it should be fully implemented.

That is their business, and it is for them to continue that discussion, but until now the House has believed that undertakings given and accepted in Committee would be honoured, and that the House would not expect on Report to find an entirely different situation. If only for this reason, I hope that my hon. Friends will oppose the new Clause.
The right hon. Gentleman might be able to retrieve his fortunes by accepting sub-Amendment (a), which would ensure that the Minister's approval would have to be obtained for manufacture for any purpose. This would soften the blow. I hope that, if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to take back new Clause 1, he will at least accept sub-Amendment (a).

Mr. Dobson: Although I have listened carefully to hon. Gentlemen opposite, they have lamentably failed to persuade me that I should not support the new Clause. Two substantial charges have been made, which I should like to answer.
The first charge is that my right hon. Friend has misled the Committee, that he has been under pressure from groups of hidden persuaders and that he has used subterfuge in putting down the new Clause. These accusations should be answered. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) was experienced enough to know what he was being asked to agree to in Committee although, with one exception, he was the hon. Member with the least experience in the House. The hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan), who leads on Post Office matters for the Opposition, did not appreciate what we were talking about upstairs. The experience of the hon. Member for Acton is much to be admired. He said:
The hon. Members for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach) and Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) all said that this is an ideological point, as if it were an academic discussion between one set of academic economists and another set. I do not agree. We are discussing the 'guts' of politics, because politics, in my view, is about ideologies, policies and principles. This is yet another occasion on which there is a clear and definite distinction between the two sides of the Committee and the two parties in the House of Commons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 30th January, 1969; c. 548.]
The hon. Member is absolutely right, and he must have known, as the hon. Member for Howden must have known,


that my right hon. Friend would not receive support on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, from the Labour Members sitting behind him. This was made clear to my right hon. Friend in later discussions and by other means. There was nothing hidden in this persuasion; it was in the open. The discussion was clearly understood and recognised by the hon. Member for Acton for what it was, an ideological discussion on which the two sides would separate. I understand my right hon. Friend's dilemma; he was obviously under some form of stricture, and I am pleased that he has been able to get away from it and to introduce the much more manageable new Clause 1.
The second charge which was levelled in Committee, partly by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), was that the Post Office has been given unlimited powers to manufacture. This is the gravamen of the Opposition's case. They are worried that the Post Office can operate as a commercial enterprise, without having to get agreement, but merely by consulting the Postmaster-General. They are afraid that it will steal the legitimate markets of private manufacturers and therefore make them commercially less secure. I do not think that I am over-stating the case. This has been precisely the point throughout. I see the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) nodding agreement—he appreciates this point.
The famous letter of 29th January, which has been quoted so many times, contained the following:
As a Minister of the Crown, I have inherent power to do anything which the subject can do unless there is any legislation to stop me. I can manufacture anything I like.
That was written against the background that the Postmaster-General's power under the Post Office Act, not under the Bill, is that he can now manufacture anything he likes, subject only to restriction of legislation. This was well known to the Committee upstairs.

Mr. John Hay: The hon. Member ought to quote the next couple of sentences, as indeed did the Assistant Postmaster-General when quoting the letter in the Standing Committee, in relation to the financial power of the Postmaster-General in this connection.

Mr. Dobson: It does not depart very much from his powers. The Postmaster-General has no restriction upon him, except in relation to his financial powers, which are laid down. There is no inherent restriction upon his powers. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South nods. The restriction is wholly in relation to his ability to obtain finance to manufacture. The powers do not need to be specifically laid down, and this was clearly understood in the Committee. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) was not a member of that Committee and I did not wish to mislead him in my quotation. In the present situation the only restriction is a financial limitation if my right hon. Friend wishes to manufacture. If he has the money, he can go ahead and manufacture.
The hon. Gentleman posed the hypothetical point as to what would happen under the new Clause if the Post Office Corporation has the power to manufacture. The answer is precisely the same. It can go ahead and manufacture. In other words, exactly the same situation obtains with the Corporation as operates at present. The only change in regard to both the Postmaster-General and the Corporation is that they have to have the money to enable them to manufacture. This is the sole limitation which is placed upon them.
These alleged substantial changes—I do not believe that they are substantial—were dealt with in the Committee upstairs. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has seen fit to withdraw Clause 13 and substitute new Clause 1. It goes a great deal of the way, if not all the way, to meet all the points which have been put to him.
I wish to comment on one or two matters. I should like to deal with some of the comments about telephone delays. There are four basic reasons, or a combination of any one of them, or several of them, which cause telephone delays, and the hon. Gentleman must know this. The first is that the equipment supplied, whether it be telephone exchange equipment, the lines, or the headphone sets in people's houses, is not adequate. The second is the way in which the telephone operator deals with the calls on the exchange—whether or not he or she picks up the call quickly enough or connects it to the wrong number. The third is the lack of capital


equipment used to attain service for its customers. It is the Government's responsibility to supply money for the capital equipment and to think ahead. The fourth reason which might cause delay in telephone calls is customers misdialling, as frequently happens. Any one of these reasons, or any combination of them, can cause delays. It is as simple as that.
I should like to take up the charge which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) against my right hon. Friend, a charge which cannot be correct. We have seen during the period of office of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, a tremendous increase in the amount of capital which he has been prepared to authorise for the use of telephone exchanges. A cut-back in the capital was a feature of the period of office of the previous Administration. Their whole aim in telephone policy was to stop development. There was continual criticism of the Post Office by the public at large as well as by Questions in the House, and the chickens have come home to roost some five years afterwards.
My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated. He knows that there is a need for a continual flow of capital equipment into the Post Office on the telephone side. This afternoon he gave the House some idea of the amount of capital equipment which he has put into the telephone service and outlined his projections a few years ahead. Hon. Members opposite should recognise this fact.
I should like to come to a few brief, gentle criticisms of my right hon. Friend, whose speech I thought a little apologetic. He said that he had reserve powers, and then went on to say that it was not intended that the Post Office would enter into manufacturing in the next year or so. That is an unfortunate statement. I can understand that my right hon. Friend is under pressure from the Telephone Engineering Manufacturing Association so that manufacturers may have an idea some time ahead as to how they should gear up their factories to increase output. If my right hon. Friend was basing his statement on the purely short-term to help them so that they will not have to face redundancy in staff, I accept it. But if he meant to give a categorical assurance that in no circumstances would the Post

Office enter into manufacturing before the next year or so, I hope that he will think again about the matter and give us some words of encouragement when he winds up on the new Clause. It is most important. It would be quite wrong to give the Telephone Engineering Manufacturing Association the word today that in some cases it can fail to meet contract dates or the obligations of the Post Office in the knowledge that for several years at least, if my right hon. Friend's words are taken literally, the Post Office will not enter into manufacturing.
The new Clause refers to consultations with the Minister, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to say a further word about this matter. He said that the purpose was to safeguard the Minister and to have consultations with other Ministers. I hope he will agree that he cannot use it as a device for delaying commercial decisions by the new Post Office Corporation. It would be most unfortunate if either party when in power were to use this particular Clause to delay decisions against the commercial advice of the new Corporation.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend said that he wanted to join in the discussions and to have meetings with the C.B.I., the new Minister and the Post Office Board. But he did not mention—and he ought to have mentioned—that he will include in that meeting representatives of the T.U.C. If he is going to give guarantees about jobs and security of tenure in the manufacturing industries, it is as much the right of the trade union representatives to know what their future might be.

Mr. Driberg: More.

Mr. Dobson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) says, it is more their right. It is an equal right that people on both sides of the table should know precisely what they are talking about and what their future is in their jobs.
I support the new Clause, as in Committee upstairs I opposed the old one, for one substantial reason which hon. Members opposite have not yet brought out. It is that if we try to change the future outlook of the Post Office to that of a more commercial organisation which is dynamic, forward-looking and able to compete, the Corporation should have full powers to develop in the way that


it wishes. The new Clause gives it the opportunity, if it wishes to do so for commercial or other reasons, to enter into manufacture even on a small scale. I believe that that is right, and that is why I support the new Clause.

Mr. Tom Boardman: I want first to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) to the difference between the financial sanction which applies today and that which is to apply under the new Clause. The hon. Gentleman referred lightly to the fact that the only control on manufacture at the moment was the little side issue of financial sanction. However, in Committee the hon. Gentleman referred to his understanding that, even if Clause 13 were not in the Bill, the Minister would still be concerned because of the power in the 1961 Act, and the Assistant Postmaster-General replied:
No. I said that this had been overtaken by the other Act. He must get financial sanction through Parliament if he wants money to carry on this form of operation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 30th January, 1969; c. 555.]
That makes the very important distinction between the powers which now exist and those which are to be granted by the new Clause. At the moment, it is necessary for the Minister to get the sanction of Parliament to carry on these operations.
I turn now to the speech of the Postmaster-General, one section of which caused me particular concern. He said that the Clause is put down in case suppliers are unable to supply at the right price or the Post Office is unable or unwilling to buy at such a price. The gist of what he said was that the Post Office reserves the power in case it does not like the supplier's price or does not wish to go to a certain supplier.
I am sure that we all welcome competition. However, this is not competition. One cannot have a monopoly buyer who is also a potential supplier. I believe that the monopoly buyer is a menace to our economy. He is at least as dangerous an animal as the monopoly supplier. He encourages an attitude of complacency, and that attitude permeates down through the system.
6.15 p.m.
Worst of all, the supplying firms are put in an extremely vulnerable position.

No manufacturer in his right mind, if there is an alternative, will put all his production into supplying one buyer. He will not invest in research and development and new plant when, at the drop of a hat or a change of the Postmaster-General's mind, any firm which has invested substantial sums in plant, research and the like can be cut off from its only customer; and we have seen how, since 30th January, the Postmaster-General's mind has changed under pressures which have been brought to bear upon him by hon. Members behind him.
The monopoly buyer does more harm to our telephone system and to our advance in research and development than any other facet. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are fond of talking about monopolies. I would ask them to look at the other side of the picture and consider the position created by the monopoly buyer.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the competitiveness of the American system, and various views about it have been expressed. I heard today about the chairman of a leading firm who went to the States and wanted to see one of his representatives who had arrived there two days earlier and taken up residence in some fairly remote place. He contacted the local telephone exchange and asked if a person who had been there only two days was likely to be on the telephone. He was told that his house will be fully equipped. When he called to see the man, he said how delighted he was to find that he had been connected within two days of arriving. The man told him that not only was he connected in two days but that he had been recommended to have a telephone in his bathroom, another in the bedroom and others in different rooms—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will link what he is saying with the debate.

Mr. Boardman: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I was allowing the competitiveness of the American system to carry me away into realms which are outside those dealt with in the new Clause.
The trouble with the monopoly buyer who retains the power to manufacture is that there can be no true comparison


between relative costs. The Postmaster-General said that he wants this power in case a supplier is not prepared to sell at a price at which he is willing to buy. The Post Office may have served up costings and supplied details of what it considers would be the production costs of a given project. However, they can never be compared fairly with the manufacturing costs of an independent supplier. It is easy to reduce the costs of any unit, given a guaranteed outlet which will take 100 per cent. of one's production. Any manufacturing firm which could guarantee to dispose of all its production could bring down its costs substantially. At the moment, supplying firms face a position where, with one buyer, they cannot be sure that their whole production will be taken. In this way, any comparison of costs between a Post Office manufacturing unit and that of a private enterprise firm could be distorted severely and would provide a poor guide to the Post Office when it was exercising its discretion as to where it should buy. The creation of competition by manufacturing which is capitalised by public money is a dangerous and wrong practice.
As other hon. Members have pointed out, the debate in Committee was abridged, and hon. Members were unable to develop their arguments as fully as they wished because of the letter to which reference has been made. When the Postmaster-General introduced the new Clause today, I was surprised and disappointed that he made no reference to Clause 13. That was a remarkable omission, and I imagine that those hon. Members who were not members of the Committee must have thought that the new Clause made some special concessions, not recognising the great change that has been made. It is extremely regrettable. The change of emphasis in the new Clause and the pressures that have been applied to bring it about indicate the dangers with which we are faced. I shall join my hon. Friends in voting against the new Clause.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I will be brief. I am heartened by the fact that this is a healthy situation for the Government to be in with unanimous support from this side of the House and total opposition from hon. Gentlemen opposite. I should not like to claim

all the credit for having engineered this situation, although the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) tried to put the blame on me. It is most unfortunate that the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) should use such language as "Somebody has been got at". It is not a simple matter—there is more to it than that—but I am reasonably satisfied that the Government have made the right decision and that the wording of the Clause is satisfactory.
I was surprised by some of the points raised by hon. Members who were on the Committee and who are here this afternoon. They should recognise that the argument put in Committee was not necessarily an ideological one. It was that, under the Bill as anticipated, the Post Office Corporation would have certain powers. We were arguing that somewhere along the line discussions and negotiations had taken place that had changed what most of us assumed would be the position in the powers of the new Corporation. I regard what the Government are doing as going back to the original intention. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All right. When I say "the original intention", I am not arguing about consultation and approval; I am merely arguing the broad case that the Corporation, if it wishes, should be able to indulge in the manufacture of equipment without too many strings attached, such as having to go to the Minister and being tied by what was manufactured in the period from 1961 when lion. Members opposite made sure that it did not have any great opportunity to manufacture anything of substance. Therefore, this is not just an ideological argument.
I remind hon. Members opposite that the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General contained in the Post Office Report for 1967–68 is not a biased document. Dealing with this great efficient industry of private enterprise, the Report states that of 41 major orders due for completion in March, 1968, none was completed in time. So where is the ideological argument?

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman continue reading from the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General? While he rightly attacks and criticises the firms for not delivering on


time, he also attacks the management in the Post Office for not being on the ball and chasing up these deliveries much earlier. This is a two-pronged affair. It is not private industry which is always to blame; it is often the Post Office.

Mr. Brown: I know the bias that the hon. Gentleman has in defence of private enterprise. I will not follow him in that direction. I am not arguing that everybody in Post Office management is efficient and top class. I am merely trying to get hon. Members opposite to recognise that neither is everybody in private enterprise. It is no use blaming the clerk of works because he does not chase up the contractor when the contractor has failed to deliver the goods. Hon. Members opposite are doing a disservice to the Post Office if they do not recognise this.
In the limited efforts that the Post Office has made to try to get a certain percentage of its requirements from outside the ring—and the Comptroller and Auditor General refers to this—some of the manufacturers would not tender because they wanted it done within the sheltered system that had been operating under the bulk agreements. Therefore, if I am to take the credit for it, I am delighted, although I think that a lot of the credit goes to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General and to the Assistant Postmaster-General, who was on a rather sticky wicket in Committee when we were arguing this point because of the absence of my right hon. Friend. I think that this is a healthy thing. I am not arguing on ideological grounds.
Some of my hon. Friends may not agree with me, but those who know anything about the manufacture of telephone and exchange equipment cannot imagine that overnight, through some wild revolutionary Socialist Postmaster-General—I do not see one in office at the moment—there will be a mushrooming of Post Office factories with workers' control involved in them. To imagine that this will happen overnight is a fantasy of imagination. I should like to think that it is possible, but, recognising the practical difficulties, it will be a long time—and in this context the time scale of my right hon. Friend makes sense—before we see that happy position. However, if the

unions involved and the public will give us the backing, we now seem to be making it possible to have that opportunity if we think it is desirable. Having removed the restriction that many of us thought was unreasonable, my right hon. Friend certainly deserves the full support of all hon. Members on this side.

Mr. Hay: I think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) is unique among those who have addressed the House today in thinking that there is little difference between the new Clause and Clause 13, which a later Amendment seeks to remove from the Bill.
Not having been on the Standing Committee, I have found considerable difficulty in trying to understand the differences between the two Clauses with which we are concerned. In any event—and I am prepared to be guided on this matter, at any rate by my hon. and right hon. Friends who have followed the progress of the Bill through all its stages so far with the greatest care—it seems to me that the Postmaster- General is faced, as has so often happened in the past with Ministers concerned with nationalisation Measures, with the problem of defining how far it is right and proper for an industry in public ownership to carry on activities which may compete with private enterprise.
It is evident that many hon. Members opposite are hot and strong in favour of the widest possible extension of manufacturing and similar powers being conferred upon the new Post Office Corporation. It is equally apparent that most of us on this side of the House resist this extension.
I should like to make one point, which has not fully been made, why we on this side do not favour the wide extension that hon. Gentlemen opposite seek. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) touched on this in his speech. When a Government Department like the Post Office or a nationalised industry undertakes manufacture and sale, it does so on uniquely favourable financial terms. Private enterprise is not only obliged to compete one firm with another, but it must raise its money from the market. Therefore, its prices must reflect the cost of money as well as the cost of raw


materials, labour and everything else. Government Departments and nationalised industries are in a privileged position, because they can often obtain their money at less than the market rate. They have their obligations underwritten by the Treasury, and in some cases, as has frequently happened in the past, if accumulated debt arises it can be, and is, written off.
None of those things happens in the case of private enterprise, and this is why we are strongly sensitive about any attempt to expand the area of activity of a nationalised industry, particularly in the context of an operation like this, where a Government Department is being divided and its commercial operating side is being set up as a new industry. That is the main observation that I should like to make relating to the debate between the two sides of the House on the ambit of the Clause.
6.30 p.m.
When I turn from the merits and look at the text of the Clause, I am horrified. In Amendment (b), which has not been selected for Division but which it is in order to discuss, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has drawn attention to some unpleasant words which appear throughout the Bill in a number of places, and which are repeated in two or three places in the Clause. I am referring to the expression, "a subsidiary of its". I hope very much that the Postmaster-General felt equally revolted by that expression. If he did, I cannot understand how these words got through the various Cabinet Committees and to this stage of the Bill without having been spotted.
I am not quite clear what the draftsman is trying to do, whether he thinks it clever to use a double genitive, or whether "its" will be taken in this context as an abbreviation for "itself". All I know is that this is an unpleasant animal, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will reconsider your opinion—I was not present when you gave it—that we should not have a Division on this Amendment.
It may be that the Postmaster-General will concede that something needs to be done about this wording at a later stage. If he is thinking about that, I urge him not to be blinded by science by the draftsman, who may argue that these words are necessary in this form because

they have some special legal implication. I urge the Postmaster-General not to believe that. The words proposed by my hon. Friend, or any other form of words which gets rid of this absurd double genitive, will be equally effective from a legal point of view.
I come, now, to the Clause as a whole. This is one of those jungle Clauses. The great advantage that I saw in Clause 13 was that it was much simpler to follow. I defy almost anybody to make any sense out of this Clause, unless he spends many minutes struggling through the undergrowth of language to distinguish what it is the Corporation will be empowered to do after consultation with the Minister, and what it will be able to do only with the Minister's approval and consent.
One thing that is clear, however, is that under the Clause as drafted the Corporation will have powers to go far beyond manufacturing. We have been talking this afternoon about powers of manufacture. If one looks at the Clause in detail, one sees that it goes beyond manufacture. It goes to supply as well, and it is this aspect of the ability of the Corporation to supply, even perhaps by retail, which we on this side of the House at any rate should look at with the greatest care.
I have tried to understand what exactly the Postmaster-General was doing in the celebrated letter of 29th January. If one reads the letter, at first blush one gets the impression that all he was doing was giving a bit of information about the extent to which the manufacturing and similar powers are carried on by his Department at the moment. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman will reply on that argument when he answers the debate. He may say that all he was trying to do was to be helpful and tell hon. Gentlemen what his Department did. He may say that this is a housemaid's baby, only a little one, and that there is nothing very much to worry about.
If that is what the right hon. Gentleman intends to say, he is hoping that the House is much more disingenous than it is, because if one reads the Standing Committee proceedings, and if one listens to the speeches of my hon. Friends who attended those debates and were concerned with the negotiations and discussions that went on, one realises that


that letter was written to make it apparent that the Government's intention with regard to the Corporation was not to go outside the ambit of what was laid down there. If that was the right hon. Gentleman's intention, the letter is perfectly clear. If, on the other hand, as some of my hon. Friends have suspected, the intention was to come pretty close to misleading by implying that there was no intention of going beyond that, but in fact, all the time, because of pressure from the benches behind him, and from outside for all we know, the intention was to produce a much tougher, much wider, and much more powerful Clause—I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that that was not his intention—

Mr. Stonehouse: At the time of the debate I made it clear that it was not the intention to go beyond what my hon. Friend said in Committee. It is since then that we have given further consideration to this question, and it is in the light of that further consideration, and in the light of what was said in Committee, that the Government have decided that we must bring this Clause forward in place of Clause 13. There is no question of my hon. Friend misleading the Committee during the discussion on Clause 13, because at that time it was our intention to stick to that Clause. It is since then that we have reconsidered the question.

Mr. Hay: I am sure that the House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I am sure we all accept that the right hon. Gentleman had no intention deliberately of misleading the Committee, but something—

Mr. Bryan: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he did not say that in his opening speech, and why he did not even mention Clause 13?

Mr. Hay: This is a good way to make a speech. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would care to intervene again to answer that.

Mr. Stonehouse: No.

Mr. Hay: In that event we had better wait until the right hon. Gentleman replies to the debate. What the right hon. Gentleman has said has made the matter more significant, and I think we are en-

titled to know what representations have been made—other than those made during the debate in Committee—which have led to this sudden change of heart and to the extension of the proposals which have been incorporated in the Clause.
Which hon. Members and which organisations have required the Government to change their mind? The speeches from the Government side in Committee were not all that violent in their tone, or so threatening, that any Minister with an ounce of courage would not have stood up against them. Something must have been going on between the Committee stage and this stage of the Bill, and we await with the greatest interest—

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): We are hearing a lot of repetitive speeches from hon. Members who were not on the Committee, and I think that it would be as well if we were to get on with the Bill.

Mr. Hay: That is a new doctrine. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that those who were not on the Standing Committee are not entitled on Report to put forward arguments and ask questions about what the Minister has done, to ask about something which looks a bit shady, then the hon. Gentleman, who has been in this House for many years, indeed for longer than I have, needs to think again about the functions of this House on Report.
I do not propose to take much longer, because I have made my main point. Having been interrupted by the right hon. Gentleman who made a statement of some importance in this connection I feel that it is perfectly legitimate and right to have asked him further questions about this and I hope he will come completely clean with the House when he comes to reply to this important debate.

Captain Orr: As the recipient of the celebrated letter, perhaps I might say a word or two about this. Perhaps to begin with I might say to hon. Members opposite that I make no complaint whatever of them for the success with which they have done their log-rolling. It has obviously been a highly successful piece of work. I congratulate them on having captured their Minister. They believe in a certain political philosophy which is different from mine and they have had a success. I make no complaint about


them at all but I do complain about the Postmaster-General. The history of this matter is simply that it was apparent, in the way the Bill was originally drafted, that Clause 13 strictly limited the powers of manufacture of the Post Office to those things which it was already manufacturing during the relevant period. Those are the words that matter.
In order to cut down debate and to ascertain exactly what the Post Office did manufacture during the relevant period, I invited the Postmaster-General, in Committee, before we reached Clause 13 and so as to speed up our deliberations on that Clause, if he would let me have a list of the things which the Post Office then manufactured during the relevant period. He was kind enough to do so. His letter was extremely useful. He set out the extent of his powers and it is true, as one hon. Member opposite has said, that he had the power of any subject to manufacture anything, subject to legislation, but it is also true, as my hon. Friend qualified it, that his powers are strictly limited by the financial control of this House. What we were dealing with here were not Ministerial powers but the powers of a new public Corporation without Ministerial control. The Ministerial control was there in the Bill over the extension of manufacture. We took that for granted.
When the discussions on Clause 13 took place in Committee we took it for granted that the Government meant what they said in their Bill; and they themselves at that stage, defied their back benchers and stuck to their opinion. We, therefore, did not debate the matter at the length we might have and the Minister got his Clause. Since then the Minister has changed his mind. But in my view, what has happened has amounted to a deception. I acquit him of deliberately deceiving the House, but what has happened has amounted to a deception, because during the course of that debate I asked several questions and one in particular. I asked about the question of relays. Winding up the debate, the Assistant Postmaster-General said:
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South asked whether the Minister could control any large-scale expansion of the Post Office manufacture of relays.
The Assistant Postmaster-General went on to say:

Of course he could. That is what Clause 13 provides. The Minister is the judge of what is 'substantial', as Clause 14(5) makes quite clear."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, Standing Committee D, 30th January, 1969; c. 556.]
The whole attitude of that Ministerial reply was that the Government were going to stick to Clause 13 and that all our fears were unjustified. That was the answer, but something has happened in the meantime. The Government have changed their mind. They have done away with Clause 13. No longer does the new Corporation have to come to the Minister for approval before an extension of its manufacture. No longer is the Assistant Postmaster-General's undertaking to me valid. In other words, the Assistant Postmaster-General has gone back on what he said. He may have had to do so under pressure, but that is what has happened.
6.45 p.m.
I suggest to the House that it is a breach of faith with those of us who took part in the debate in Committee on the understanding that the Government meant what they said. The Government have now gone back on their word. I am not going over the whole political, philosophical argument. It is perfectly plain that there is a difference of opinion between us about whether or not the new Corporation should be permitted an extension of its manufacture. I do not at all object to the extent to what the Post Office at present manufactures. I would not object if the Post Office under its present form, with Parliamentary control, were to seek to extend certain parts of its manufacture. Indeed, it might well be in the public interest that it should do so.
What we are dealing with now, however, is not the Post Office but a new public Corporation without Ministerial control. All that is in this new Clause is the obligation to consult the Minister, that is all.

Mr. Driberg: And secure approval.

Captain Orr: No, with great respect, the hon. Gentleman who usually reads things so well, has misread this. Approval is required only when there is manufacture for supply to others. In the case of manufacture for the Post Office's own use, the obligation is simply to consult the Minister.

Mr. Driberg: I believe that in subsection (2) it should also be "consultation".

Captain Orr: I agree that we have a basic difference of opinion. I believe that subsection (1) should require approval, and I hope that perhaps even now, at this late stage, or perhaps in another place, we might get a provision that Ministerial approval is still required. I still want the decision as to whether the new Corporation shall go into—to use the Postmaster-General's own phrase—"a substantial increase in its manufacturing powers" to be a decision reserved to this House of Commons, and not to this Corporation we are setting up.

Mr. Driberg: As I said in interrupting a previous speaker on the hon. Gentleman's side, accountability to Parliament is the main thing and that will be achieved if the new Clause 6 is carried.

Captain Orr: Yes, I sympathise with that, but at present we are looking at the Bill without the new Clause 6, without any guarantee that that Clause is to be in the Bill. We have to accept the position as it is. If the Postmaster-General were to give us an undertaking now that he is going to accept his hon. Friend's [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. In this debate the hon. Gentleman cannot debate new Clause 6.

Captain Orr: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad that you have called attention to it; but it is very sad that we cannot do so because it might alter our attitude to this Clause. But I quite understand. It is exceedingly unfortunate. I am greatly disappointed in the Postmaster-General. I did not think he would allow himself to go back on undertakings in the way he has done in this case. He has gone back on undertakings which he gave to the Committee. He has been guilty of a breach of faith with those of us on this side who served on the Committee, and supported him against his own supporters: and he has done it without explanation and without telling us what is behind it or to exactly what pressures he has been subjected. I hope we will resist this new Clause and that when it comes to the House a later Amendment to delete Clause 13 will be resisted too, so that we show a consistency

which the Postmaster-General himself has failed to show.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Although many Clauses and Amendments have been selected for debate over the next two days, there are probably two or three basic important issues which divide the Labour Party and the Conservative Party and which are fundamental to why we are in politics. On this new Clause we are discussing the extension that many hon. Members opposite would like to see in the manufacturing powers of the Post Office. Hon. Members opposite are in politics and supporters of their party to promote those interests. We are in politics to oppose the promotion of those interests. That is why this is an important and fundamental debate.
There has been a substantial change from the original control which was to be imposed by the Postmaster-General. Clause 13 is to be deleted, rather surreptitiously. It is a similar exercise to that which occurred when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing the Budget, told us what the pension increases were to be without telling us what the cost would be in the autumn. Clause 13, which is to be deleted, said that the Post Office Corporation was not to be allowed to extend its manufacturing powers except under authorisation granted by the Minister—that is, the Minister had the say-so. Under new Clause 1 the Minister does not have the say-so, because it will be consultation between the Minister and the Post Office. "Consultation" is a wide phrase. It can mean a nod and a wink. If a really Socialist Postmaster-General were to be appointed—

Mr. Driberg: Unthinkable.

Mr. Baker: As the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) says, it is unthinkable. We certainly have not got one at the moment. If one were to be appointed, he would be able to nudge the Post Office Board into substantially extending the manufacturing powers of the Post Office. This is what worries us. This is a major change from the original Bill.
The only limitation in the new Clause is that in subsection (4), which relates specifically to the trading activities of the Post Office—that is, when it manufactures things that it does not want for itself and sells them generally. The limitation is that when the Post Office does


that sort of thing it must act as if it were engaged in a commercial enterprise. That, again, is a very loose phrase. It means just what one wants it to mean. We on this side submit that a commercial enterprise must make profits. If it does not, it should go bankrupt. That clearly could not happen to the manufacturing section of the Post Office. Hon. Members opposite would not want that to happen. We would expect a commercial enterprise to pay dividends, but the manufacturing side of the Post Office is unlikely to do that.
It is impossible to discover how it is acting, whether it is acting commercially or not, because no separate accounts exist for the manufacturing operations of the Post Office. We managed to wring out only one major concession in Committee—that was to have separate accounts for the National Data Processing Service, because we wanted to know how it is operating. We have not managed to wring out the other concession of having separate accounts for manufacturing activities. It is therefore impossible to know whether they are operating commercially.
We contend that the Post Office is mainly concerned with doing two things—running an efficient postal service and running an efficient telephone service. It should stick to doing those two things and should not extend its activities into manufacturing. There are good reasons why it should not do so.
The Postmaster-General says that these powers are reserve powers and that he does not want to use them. What are they in reserve for? Does he have in mind anything in particular which he thinks the Post Office should be manufacturing? Should it be manufacturing telephone apparatus, or exchange equipment, or the new Post Office vans that are to be battery-powered? Should it go further and start manufacturing postmen's equipment and uniforms?

Mr. Driberg: Certainly.

Mr. Baker: Let us go a little further for the hon. Gentleman. If we are short of telegraph poles, should it buy up a few acres of forest in Scotland? There is no end to what the Post Office could do under the new Clause. We want to know what specific activities the Postmaster-General has in mind.
Hon. Members opposite contend that if the Post Office had manufacturing facilities it would be able to test the costings of its suppliers; it could go to a little factory of its own and say, "Is this a fair cost from Plessey" or "from Standard Telephones"? This is absurd. Marks & Spencer does not have to own clothing factories and textile mills to know that its suppliers are competitive; nor does any good service industry.
Another argument put forward for extending the manufacturing powers of the Post Office was that it would be a good thing for the Post Office to get into a profitable industry. I certainly agree with that, but I think that the Post Office, which cannot even run the telegram service without losing 5s. for every telegram sent, is very unlikely to be able profitably to run a factory making telephone apparatus.

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions prolong speeches.

Mr. Dobson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being grossly unfair to the Post Office in his criticism of the telegraph service. With his financial background he knows that the Post Office cannot make a profit on that service unless the price of telegrams is swingeingly increased. The more the Post Office increases the cost the fewer telegrams are sent and the more the service goes into the red.

Mr. Baker: I absolutely refute that. I have put to the Postmaster-General on other occasions, and I hope within the next 48 hours to do so again if I can get it in order on an Amendment or a new Clause, ways of making money out of telegrams.

Mr. Speaker: Order—not in this debate.

Mr. Baker: I think that it can be done, but I will not develop the point at this time.
A third argument advanced by hon. Members opposite for extending manufacturing activities is that it would bring employment to, or protect employment in, areas like Ulster. Hon. Members need only compare the activities of other nationalised industries to realise how


fallacious that argument is. I would not have said that the National Coal Board was protecting employment. The Steel Corporation is in the process of laying off 50,000 workers.
The last and most important argument advanced by hon. Members opposite is that an extension of these activities would protect the Post Office's own supply line: if it had factories manufacturing telephone apparatus and exchange equipment, it would be able to protect its own supply line and would also be able to buy in the most competitive markets. This is a false argument. If the Post Office wants to protect its own supply line and buy in the most competitive market, it should allow more deals like G.L.C. buying the Ericsson exchange. That is the way to get the prices of the domestic telephone equipment manufacturers down—by opening up the whole purchasing of the Post Office to greater competition.
This afternoon the right hon. Gentleman said that these are reserve powers and that he does not want to use them. Hon. Members below the Gangway are breathing heavily down his neck because they want these powers to be used. The Post Office Engineering Union has produced a pamphlet. I have not seen a copy, but I saw the review of it in The Times. The union has urged the Post Office to do three things when new Clause 1 has been approved by the House—first, to extend its repair facilities. I would not disagree with that. The union has urged the Post Office, secondly, to build new factories in development areas. It would be absolutely disastrous if the Post Office were to embark upon that course. The union has urged the Post Office, thirdly, to purchase a controlling interest in existing firms—straightforward nationalisation. These are the sort of powers that the Post Office will have when the Clause is passed.
My objections to the Clause are, first, that it will increase the monopoly powers of the Post Office, and the Post Office is insulated from market forces and does not have to respond to competitive pressures. Secondly, the Clause is a blank cheque to the Post Office to buy almost any company in the country without recourse to the House. Thirdly and lastly, I believe that the Post Office should stick to what it is doing.
I return to the basic difference between the two sides of the House. Hon. Members opposite are basically in politics to extend the rôle of the State and State corporations like the Post Office. We in the Conservative Party are in politics to run down the rôle of the State and to limit its expansion. That is the issue in the new Clause, which I hope will be defeated.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hordern: I was surprised that the Minister should castigate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hoy) for intervening in the debate, particularly because my hon. Friend managed to extract from the Postmaster-General a most important statement, namely, that he had changed his mind since Clause 13 was dealt with in Committee in such a way that it was necessary to introduce this obnoxious new Clause.
It is most important that the Postmaster-General or the Assistant Postmaster-General should give us the reasons and evidence for this change of mind. I do not wish to refer to what happened about Clause 13, but it is essential that the Government should divulge the evidence which came into their possession which caused them to introduce the new Clause and the substantial extra powers which it gives. As is clear from the new Clause, the responsibilities of the Postmaster-General will be very heavy because the new Corporation will have to consult him about permission to manufacture for outside bodies.
The Minister must have known during the debate on Clause 13 what the scale of expenditure by the Post Office in capital investment would be. We have been told today that it is to be about £2,000 million over the next five years. This knowledge has not suddenly become available since 29th January. What evidence is there that the supply and contracting companies have suddenly become incapable of supplying this material? That is one construction of the reasons which brought about the Minister's change of mind. Is it conceivable, with a capital expenditure programme over five years, that the Minister suddenly discovered that he had no faith in the suppliers to produce the essential equipment? If that is so, let us have the evidence for it.
If the reason for the Government's change of mind is that they feel it necessary to safeguard their interests by having manufacturing capacity, what manufacturing capacity will be introduced? It is inconceivable that the Government should have introduced the new Clause with powers to manufacture on the basis that the existing suppliers could not meet their commitment unless they had firm ideas about the equipment which is to be manufactured. I hope that we shall have precise answers on these points.
It is extraordinary that on an investment programme lasting over five years it should be suggested that we cannot count on companies like Plessey, Standard Telephones and G.E.C. to provide this equipment. I cannot believe that that is what the Government suggest. This ignores completely supplies from suppliers abroad. Companies in the Free Trade Area like Ericsson will perfectly legitimately be quoting for the supply of equipment to the Post Office. An incursion by the Post Office into manufacturing equipment will be extraordinary in the circumstances of the total supply available.
What are the manufacturing criteria for the new Corporation? What possible financial criteria can it put forward? The Postmaster-General said that there would be a sharp financial objective. I do not know what the financial objective of the Post Office is. I think that it is to earn a return of about 10 per cent. on its assets, but I should like to be advised on that point. Whatever the level, it cannot be comparable with the discipline which supplying companies must face when supplying equipment to the Post Office.
The purpose of subsection (4) of the new Clause is that the Corporation shall act as if it were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise. It is impossible for it to engage as a commercial enterprise. Are we to believe that the Corporation, when it is in existence, will have precisely the same and no better access to banking facilities than its competitors in private industry? Are we to believe that bank managers will say, "We are sorry, but we cannot allow you overdraft facilities because of the credit squeeze"? Are we to believe that it will get no better interest rates than those

offered to private companies? Will it have to pay, as first-class companies do, over 10 per cent. to borrow money in the market? What criteria will it have to establish compared with private companies in industry?
It is impossible to believe that a corporation, functioning for a monopoly buyer, will not be supported by the State far more than any private supplier. This is the most objectionable feature of the Corporation manufacturing its own equipment. The uncertainty which must have been introduced among suppliers and in industry must be intense. The Postmaster-General, by his intervention, brief though it was, must have caused serious disturbance in the industry, and I hope that when he winds up the debate he will do his best to put it right.

Mr. Stonehouse: With permission, I should like to speak again. This has been a useful and long debate and I am grateful to hon. Members who have contributed to it.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) drew attention to the gulf between the two sides of the House. He is absolutely right. There is a difference in the philosophical approach to this matter of the two sides of the House. We on this side believe that a public enterprise like the Post Office should have broadly the same opportunity as private enterprise to develop its manufacturing facilities to meet its requirements. This is important because circumstances in the market may change tremendously in the next ten or 20 years. By the Bill, we are setting out the position not just for next year or the year after but for ten years' time when the circumstances of the manufacturing and supplying industry will be vastly different from what they are now. It is important that the House should consider possible eventualities.
I do not propose, and the Post Office Corporation when it is set up will not propose, immediately to embark on a whole range of manufacturing activities. Our relations with the suppliers are very helpful and co-operative and it is not our wish to upset them. I have paid tribute to the way in which they have responded to the increased demands made upon them.
The Opposition are objecting because the new Clause is new. If a new proposal


is right, it should be applauded. I am extremely surprised that, of all people, hon. Members opposite, who in Committee made dozens of suggestions to me for improving the Bill, should complain that I have changed my mind. There was no point in their putting forward the points which we debated in Committee unless they thought that there was a possibility that, on reconsideration, I would change my mind. It makes nonsense of our Standing Committee proceedings and the purpose of the House of Commons if Ministers are not prepared to reconsider matters in the light of debates in Committee.
After the debate in Standing Committee, I carefully considered what had been said. I was unable to attend that debate, but I read the OFFICIAL REPORT with great care and I thought that many of the observations of hon. Members on my side, particularly those of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) were extremely valuable.
I took the Report of the Standing Committee to the Post Office Board, of which I am Chairman, and debated the subject with it. It reconsidered its position about the powers which it thought that the Post Office Corporation would require and advised me that it would be appropriate if it had powers to increase its manufacturing capacity to meet its own requirements, after consultation with the Minister, rather than having to have the Minister's approval in each case.
It was for these reasons that I brought forward the new Clause, and it was obvious that this would lead to the deletion of the original Clause 13, which I am persuaded now is not the best way to deal with the question—

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that asking the Post Office whether it wants increased powers is like asking a greedy man whether he wants to be a glutton?

Mr. Stonehouse: We must appreciate that the existing Post Office Board and the future Corporation must have a responsible attitude to their responsibilities. These bodies are, after all, being given monopoly powers and responsibilities to the business community and the country and it is very important in the building up of this highly technological

and advanced communications system that the Post Office should be able to have access to all the advanced equipment that it requires and that it should be able to guarantee the smooth supply of that essential equipment. It is in the light of those responsibilities that the Post Office asked the Minister concerned for the new Clause.
It was the Government's decision that the new Clause would be appropriate in all the circumstances. I appreciate that I have not been able to go as far as my hon. Friends would have liked. They would have preferred no restriction at all on the Corporation's activities and that it should be able to engage in wide-scale manufacturing activities, even in supply outside. I have been unable to go that far, but it is important that the Post Office should be able to manufacture for its own requirements.

Mr. Bryan: We still cannot find out from the right hon. Gentleman why it was only when my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) spoke, three-quarters of the way through the debate, that he told us what had happened. We were bound to think it was subterfuge when he presented the new Clause without the slightest mention of Clause 13, which is the whole subject of this discussion.

Mr. Stonehouse: The allegation of deception, although made in a kindly way by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), is something which I tried to refute because it was unworthy. The idea of deception is that at the time of the Committee proceedings my hon. Friend knew what we were intending to do on Report. This suggestion is absolutely wrong. Neither my hon. Friend nor I at that time had any knowledge that the new Clause would be brought forward. The assurances given in Committee, I agree, related to the then Clause 13, but they were made in a fully honourable spirit and there is no question of any deception applying to those proceedings.

Captain Orr: I did not make that charge. What I said was that what had happened in the long run amounted to a breach of faith, because, for whatever motives, the various undertakings were given by the Assistant Postmaster-General—I fully accept his good faith and I have


not suggested otherwise—but for whatever reasons—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not in Committee. Interventions must be brief.

Captain Orr: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, but the right hon. Gentleman has made a serious charge, that I have charged him and his hon. Friend with something dishonourable. I did not do so. What I said was that the effect of putting down the new Clause without proper preparation amounts to a breach of faith and of the undertakings given in Committee.

Mr. Stonehouse: All I can say is that if Ministers are not going to be influenced after consideration of proceedings in Standing Committee, then those proceedings need not take place. My hon. Friends made some valuable contributions to that debate. It would be ridiculous if I did not consider what they said and make revised proposals. Hon. Members opposite also made helpful speeches which my hon. Friend and I have studied carefully. If we changed our minds in the light of their points, would they then accuse us of bad faith because we had adopted their points of view? Ministers must be prepared to be flexible, and I have admitted today that the stand of my hon. Friend and myself on the original Clause 13 in Committee was incorrect. We have done our best to change it through the new Clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) gave some tepid support to the new Clause. I am grateful to him and to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for their observations about Amendment (b). I have been thinking about this during the afternoon and I agree that their form of words seems strictly more attractive, but I am advised that the form in the new Clause is more appropriate, and applies in the case of one subsidiary, whereas their words assume that the Corporation will have plural subsidiaries. My advice from the draftsmen is that it would be more appropriate to stick to the present wording. I regret that this is my advice, because I agree that, at this stage of our proceedings, it would be very attractive to give way to the felicitous arguments of the hon. Member for Yeovil.

Mr. Peyton: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not persist in accept-

ing that deplorable advice. Of course we will not be dogmatic. If he would only say that he would find a more attractive form of words than this appalling ugliness I should be glad to accept that.

Mr. Stonehouse: As I say, I am sorry that I cannot give way on that. Nor can I advise the House to accept Amendments (a), (c), (d), (e), (f) or (g).

Mr. Hay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the advice that he has been given is nonsense because the plural always includes the singular? As he will be under heavy pressure in another place to alter the wording of the Clause, will he give an assurance that the necessary alteration will be made in another place and that he will consider the matter between now and that stage?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am always prepared to give further consideration to matters at any stage. I must, however, advise the House of the position as we see it, and that is the position to which I stick. Some of the legal drafting may seem clumsy, but I am advised that this is the right way to proceed.
I must also advise the House to reject the other Amendments to which I referred because they would be tantamount to going back to the original Clause 13, which insisted on Ministerial approval for the extension of manufacturing activities. That, for the reasons I have explained, would be unwise.
Amendment (e) urges us to delete the words
… in such manner as he thinks fit".
The hon. Member for Yeovil wondered what this provision meant. The answer is that it must be open to the Minister to decide how this information is conveyed. There may be a large number of quite minor examples about which it would be inappropriate for the Minister to issue a White Paper. A major change might represent an issue on which it would be appropriate for such a document to be published, but there might be many minor changes about which it would be more appropriate for the Minister to answer a Question in the House or to find another way of informing Parliament.
The fact that the House of Commons and the House of Lords are not referred


to in the new Clause is no disrespect to Parliament. It is merely a convenience because there may be minor items which the Post Office intends to manufacture—for example, transistor valves which it requires for certain circuits—which would not concern the House of Commons because it would not be a question of principle, although it might be an important matter on which advice should be given to the C.B.I. directly so that it could advise the constituent firm most closely concerned. As I say, on major questions the Minister would find some way to advise Parliament.

Captain Orr: What about the right hon. Gentleman's earlier assurance?

Mr. Stonehouse: We must consider each case on its merits. I should not like to anticipate what the Minister might think at a particular time about a particular item.

Captain Orr: I had in mind what the right hon. Gentleman said in Committee, which was an undertaking based on the existence of the original Clause 13. Does that undertaking still stand?

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes. I think that it would be the intention of the Minister to take a close interest in the extension of the activities of the Post Office in this respect and to ensure that the interested companies, particularly competive firms, were advised of what was going on. This is the purpose of the consultation called for in the new Clause. The Minister would obviously want to act on the information made available to him.
Amendment No. 55 provides for the Minister to call for information in relation to
'… the construction, manufacture of production of articles in …
the particular financial year. This provision is being included to ensure that the public at large will be aware of the activities of the Post Office so that the cross-subsidisation danger to which I referred can be avoided.
This has been a useful discussion which has clarified the intention behind the new Clause. I have done my best to answer the questions that have been asked. The

new Clause is valuable for the Corporation, and I therefore commend it to the House.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. On Report it is usual to debate formally, although I cannot prevent the hon. Member from speaking. Mr. McNair-Wilson.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I appreciate your remark, Mr. Speaker, and I promise to be brief.
The right hon. Gentleman's reply has been most unsatisfactory. I am particularly unhappy about his refusal to talk more enthusiastically about Amendment (a) to the new Clause. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is the intention of his Department and the Government to give public corporations the same facilities as exist in the private sector. The new Clause does nothing of the sort, for it goes far beyond anything that would be expected of a private company.
This provision would give complete freedom to the Corporation to engage in a whole range of costly manufacturing and other businesses. We are told that consultation will take place, but nobody has defined "consultation" in this context and certainly I do not know what it means. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman runs away from the word "approval". If we could see in the Clause at least a figure beyond which nothing should be spent without approval we should be happier.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite may dislike this line of thought, but do they realise that the new Clause will allow the Corporation to go into a whole sphere of activity even unthought of by the Post Office now? I cannot understand why it is not possible to put real target figures in the Clause and why the provision should be left in a completely open-ended way which will enable the Post Office to look attractively at any industry.
We have been here before. We have had this type of blanket provision before. We recall recent transport legislation. This is an attempt to introduce legislation as a form of creeping nationalisation, and when the Postmaster-General talks encouragingly about the effect on


supplies we know perfectly well that as the level of Government intervention in industry increases, so the risk to the supplier increases because nobody can compete with the man who has his hand in the taxpayer's pocket.

Mr. Keith Speed: I, too, will be brief—

Mr. Driberg: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put:—

Question put, That the Question be now put.

The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 150.

Division No. 173.]
AYES
[7.28 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Grey, Charles (Durham)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Alldritt, Walter
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Anderson, Donald
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Manuel, Archie


Ashley, Jack
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mapp, Charles


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marks, Kenneth


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Hamling, William
Marquand, David


Barnett, Joel
Hannan, William
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bence, Cyril
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mason, Rt. Hn, Roy


Bessell, Peter
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mayhew, Christopher


Bidwell, Sydney
Haseldine, Norman
Mendelson, John


Bishop, E. S.
Hattersley, Roy
Mikardo, Ian


Blackburn, F.
Hazell, Bert
Millan, Bruce


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Henig, Stanley
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Booth, Albert
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Boston, Terence
Hobden, Dennis
Molloy, William


Bottomley, Rt, Hn. Arthur
Hooley, Frank
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Boyden, James
Horner, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythensnawe)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brooks, Edwin
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Moyle, Roland


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Murray, Albert


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Huckfield, Leslie
Neal, Harold


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Newens, Stan


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric


Cant, R. B.
Hunter, Adam
O'Malley, Brian


Carmichael, Neil
Hynd, John
Orbach, Maurice


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Orme, Stanley


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Janner, Sir Barnett
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Chapman, Donald
Jay, Rt, Hn. Douglas
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Coe, Denis
Jeger, George (Goole)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Coleman, Donald
Jager, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Paget, R. T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pardoe, John


Crostand, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pavitt, Laurence


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, G. E'fed (Rhondda, E.)
Judd, Frank
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Daves, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kelley, Richard
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Delargy, Hugh
Lawson, George
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Price, William (Rugby)


Dewar, Donald
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Probert, Arthur


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rankin, John


Dobson, Ray

Bees, Merlyn


Doig, Peter
Lee, John (Reading)
Richard, Ivor


Driberg, Tom
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Ellis, John
Lomas, Kenneth
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


English, Michael
Luard, Evan
Rose, Paul


Ensor, David
Lubbock, Eric
Rowlands, E.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Ryan, John


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McBride, Neil
Sheldon, Robert


Finch, Harold
MacColl, James
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacDermot, Niall
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Macdonald, A. H.
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Silverman, Julius


Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Slater, Joseph


Fowler, Gerry
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Small, William


Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackintosh, John P.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Ginsburg, David
Maclennan, Robert
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Gregory, Arnold
McNamara, J. Kevin
Taverne, Dick




Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Weitzman, David
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.


Thornton, Ernest
Wellbeloved, James
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Tinn, James
White, Mrs. Eirene
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Tomney, Frank
Wilkins, W. A.
Woof, Robert


Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick



Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Wallace, George
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mr. John McCann.


Watkins, David (Consett)






NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Goodhart, Philip
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Awdry, Daniel
Gower, Raymond
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Grant, Anthony
Peel, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Percival, Ian


Balniel, Lord
Gurden, Harold
Peyton, John


Batsford, Brian
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pink, R. Bonner


Bed, Ronald
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pym, Francis


Biffen, John
Hay, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Biggs-Davison, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Higgins, Terence L.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Black, Sir Cyril
Hiley, Joseph
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Blaker, Peter
Hornby, Richard
Royle, Anthony


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Russell, Sir Ronald


Body, Richard
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott, Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sharples, Richard


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Silvester, Frederick


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Sinclair, Sir George


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Bryan, Paul
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M;
Kershaw, Anthony
Speed, Keith


Bullus, Sir Eric
Lambton, Viscount
Stainton, Keith


Burden, F. A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stodart, Anthony


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Lane, David
Summers, Sir Spencer


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Carlisle, Mark
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Clark, Henry
MacArthur, Ian
Tilney, John


Clegg, Walter
McMaster, Stanley
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Costain, A. P.
McNair-Wilson, M. (Walthamstow, E.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Crouch, David
Maddan, Martin
Vickers, Dame Joan


Crowder, F. P.
Maude, Angus
Wall, Patrick


Currie, G. B. H.
Mawby, Ray
Walters, Dennis


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ward, Dame Irene


Dean, Paul
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Monro, Hector
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Digby, Simon Wingfield
More, Jasper
Wiggin, A. W.


Donnelly, Desmond
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Doughty, Charles
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Drayson, G. B.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Elliott, R. W. (N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Murton, Oscar
Woodnutt, Mark


Farr, John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wright, Esmond


Fortescue, Tim
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wylie, N. R.


Foster, Sir John
Nott, John
Younger, Hn. George


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Onslow, Cranley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Glover, Sir Douglas
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Mr. Timothy Kitson.

Question put accordingly, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes, 237, Noes 155.

Division No. 174.]
AYES
[7.38 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Bishop, E. S.
Brown, Bob (N'c'tte-upon-Tyne, W.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blackburn, F.
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Alldritt, Walter
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Buchan, Norman


Anderson, Donald
Booth, Albert
Cant, R. B.


Ashley, Jack
Boston, Terence
Carmichael, Neil


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Boyden, James
Chapman, Donald


Barnett, Joel
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Coe, Denis


Bence, Cyril
Brooks, Edwin
Coleman, Donald


Bessell, Peter
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Bidwell, Sydney
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Crawshaw, Richard




Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jeger, George (Goole)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P' cras, S.)
Paget, R. T.


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pardoe, John


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pavitt, Laurence


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Delargy, Hugh
Keller, Richard
Pentland, Norman


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lawson, George
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Dobson, Ray
Leadbitter, Ted
Price, William (Rugby)


Doig, Peter
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Probert, Arthur


Driberg, Tom
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rankin, John


Dun woody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lee, John (Reading)
Bees, Merlyn


Eadie, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan
Richard, Ivor


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Ellis, John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


English, Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Ensor, David
Lomas, Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Luard, Evan
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Lubbock, Eric
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rose, Paul


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rowlands, E.


Finch, Harold
McBride, Neil
Ryan, John


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCann, John
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacColl, James
Sheldon, Robert


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacDermot, Niall
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Forrester, John
Macdonald, A. H.
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fowler, Gerry
McGuire, Michael
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Freeson, Reginald
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Calpern, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Silverman, Julius


Girnsburg, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Slater, Joseph


Greenwood. Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mackie, John
Small, William


Gregory, Arnold
Mackintosh, John P.
Spriggs, Leslie


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Maclennan, Robert
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Taverne, Dick



Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Matron, Simon (Bootle)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E)
Thornton, Ernest


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Manuel, Archie
Tinn, James


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mapp, Charles
Tomney, Frank


Hamling, William
Marks, Kenneth
Wainwrjght, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hannan, William
Marquand, David
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wallace, George


Haseldine, Norman
Mayhew, Christopher
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hattersley, Roy
Mendelson, John
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hazell, Bert
Mikardo, Ian
Weitzman, David


Henig, Stanley
Millan, Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Miller, Dr. M. S.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Hobden, Dennis
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hooley, Frank
Molloy, William
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Homer, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moyle, Roland
Willts, Rt. Hn. George


Huckfield, Leslie
Murray, Albert
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Newens, Stan
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric
Woof, Robert


Hunter, Adam
O'Malley, Brian



Hynd, John
Orbach, Maurice
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Janner, Sir Barnett
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Mr. Alan Fitch.


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Will (Morpeth)





NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Biffen, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Biggs-Davison, John
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Awdry, Daniel
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Bryan, Paul


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Black, Sir Cyril
Buchanan-Smith, AIick (Angus, N &amp; M)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Blaker, Peter
Bullus, Sir Eric


Balniel, Lord
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Burden, F. A.


Batsford, Brian
Body, Richard
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)


Bell, Ronald
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Carlisle, Mark


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Chichester-Clark, R.







Clark, Henry
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Clegg, Walter
Kershaw, Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Costain, A. P.
Lambton, Viscount
Royle, Anthony


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Crowder, F. P.
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Currie, G. B. H.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott-Hopkins, James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sharples, Richard


Dean, Paul
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Silvester, Frederick


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
MacArthur, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McMaster, Stanley
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Donnelly, Desmond
McNair-Wilson, M. (Walthamstow, E.)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Doughty, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Speed, Keith


Drayson, G. B.
Maddan, Martin
Stainton, Keith


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Marten, Neil
Stodart, Anthony


Errington, Sir Eric
Maude, Angus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Farr, John
Mawby, Ray
Summers, Sir Spencer


Fortescue, Tim
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Foster, Sir John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Monro, Hector
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
More, Jasper
Tilney, John


Glover, Sir Douglas
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Goodhart, Philip
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar
Vickers, Dame Joan


Grant, Anthony
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wall, Patrick


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Walters, Dennis


Gurden, Harold
Nott, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Onslow, Cranley
Weatherill, Bernard


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wiggin, A. W.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Hay, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wolrige-Gurdon, Patrick


Higgins, Terence L.
Peel, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian
Woodnutt, Mark


Hornby, Richard
Peyton, John
Worsley, Marcus


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner
Wright, Esmond


Iremonger, T. L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wylie, N. R.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Younger, Hn. George


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Francis



Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Mr. Timothy Kitson.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. You were good enough earlier on to deliver a provisional ruling on sub-Amendment (b), which represents an attempt, no matter how forlorn, on both sides of the House to remedy a piece of really abominable and offensive drafting—the insertion of the words
Post Office … or a subsidiary of its".
Everyone who has commented on the wording has thought it to be abominable. If the Minister persists in his unsatisfactory attitude over this it would be very acceptable to those of us who dislike this wording to vote against it. I hope that you will be good enough to reconsider—

Mr. Speaker: I informed the hon. Gentleman earlier that I did not propose to allow a Division on Amendment (b). He may have one on Amendment (a).

Mr. Bryan: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Bryan: I do not wish to question your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I wonder whether you were in the Chair when the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) raised very good arguments about this Clause which perhaps, if you had heard them, might have led you to reconsider.

Mr. Speaker: That submission still delicately questions the selection I have made. I have selected Amendment (a) for Division but not Amendment (b). Will the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) now formally move Amendment (a)?

Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause: In line 1, leave out from '(1)' to 'before' and insert:
'The Post Office shall require the Minister's approval'.—[Mr. Peyton.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 237.

Division No. 175.]
AYES
[7.50 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempsted)
Gower, Raymond
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Awdry, Daniel
Grant, Anthony
Peel, John


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Percival, Ian


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gurden, Harold
Peyton, John


Balniel, Lord
Hall, John Wycombe)
Pink, R. Bonner


Batsford, Brian
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bell, Ronald
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pym, Francis


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Hay, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Biffen, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Biggs-Davison, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hiley, Joseph
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Black, Sir Cyril
Hornby, Richard
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Blaker, Peter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Royle, Anthony


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Body, Richard
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Scott, Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Sharples, Richard


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Silvester, Frederick


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sinclair, Sir George


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Bryan, Paul
Kershaw, Anthony
Speed, Keith


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Kitson, Timothy
Stainton, Keith


Bullus, Sir Eric
Lambton, Viscount
Stodart, Anthony


Burden, F. A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Lane, David
Summers, Sir Spencer


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Tapsell, Peter


Carlisle, Mark
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Clark, Henry
MacArthur, Ian
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Clegg, Walter
McMaster, Stanley
Tilney, John



McNair-Wilson, M. (Walthamstow, E.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Crowder, F. P.
Maddan, Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Currie, G. B. H.
Marten, Neil
Vickers, Dame Joan


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maude, Angus
Wall, Patrick


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Mawby, Ray
Walters, Dennis


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ward, Dame Irene


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Mills, Stratum (Belfast, N.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Donnelly, Desmond
Miscampbell, Norman
Wiggin, A. W.


Doughty, Charles
Monro, Hector
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Drayson, G. B.
More, Jasper
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Errington, Sir Eric
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Eyre, Reginald
Murton, Oscar
Woodnutt, Mark


Farr, John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Worsley, Marcus


Fortescue, Tim
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wright, Esmond


Foster, Sir John
Nott, John
Wylie, N. R.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Onslow, Cranley
Younger, Hn. George


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.



Glover, Sir Douglas
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Goodhart, Philip
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Delargy, Hugh


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dempsey, James


Alldritt, Walter
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dewar, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Buchan, Norman
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Ashley, Jack
Cant, R. B.
Dobson, Ray


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Carmichael, Neil
Doig, Peter


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Driberg, Tom


Barnett, Joel
Chapman, Donald
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Bence, Cyril
Coe, Denis
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Bessell, Peter
Coleman, Donald
Eadie, Alex


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Bishop, E. S.
Crawshaw, Richard
Ellis, John


Blackburn, F.
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
English, Michael


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Ensor, David


Booth, Albert
Dalyell, Tam
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Boston, Terence
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Evans, Cwynfor (C'marthen)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Boyden, James
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Finch, Harold


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Brooks, Edwin
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)




Forrester, John
Lomas, Kenneth
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Fowler, Gerry
Luard, Evan
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Freeson, Reginald
Lubbock, Eric
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Price, William (Rugby)


Ginsburg, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Probert, Arthur


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McBride, Neil
Rankin, John


Gregory, Arnold
McCann, John
Rees, Merlyn


Grey, Charles (Durham)
MacColl, James
Richard, Ivor


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacDermot, Niall
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Macdonald, A. H.
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
McGuire, Michael
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mackie, John
Rose, Paul


Hamling, William
Mackintosh, John P.
Rowlands, E.


Hannan, William
Maclennan, Robert
Ryan, John


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McNamara, J. Kevin
Sheldon, Robert


Haseldine, Norman
MacPherson, Malcolm
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hattersley, Roy
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hazell, Bert
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N. E.)


Henig, Stanley
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Manuel, Archie
Silverman, Julius


Hobden, Dennis
Mapp, Charles
Slater, Joseph


Hooley, Frank
Marks, Kenneth
Small, William


Horner, John
Marquand, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mayhew, Christopher
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Huckfield, Leslie
Mendelson, John
Taverne, Dick


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Millan, Bruce
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Thornton, Ernest


Hunter, Adam
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'p ton, Test)
Tinn, James


Hynd, John
Molloy, William
Tomney, Frank


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Moyle, Roland
Wallace, George


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Murray, Albert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Newens, Stan
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Weitzman, David


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ogden, Eric
Wellbeloved, James


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
O'Malley, Brian
White, Mrs. Eirene


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Orbach, Maurice
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Orme, Stanley
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Judd, Frank
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Kelley, Richard
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Paget, R. T.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Lawson, George
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Leadbitter, Ted
Pardoe, John
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Woof, Robert


Lee, John (Reading)
Pavitt, Laurence



Lestor, Miss Joan
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Pentland, Norman
Mr. Alan Fitch.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Question put, That the Clause be added to the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 164.

Division No. 176.]
AYES
[8.0 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Boyden, James
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bradley, Tom
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Alldritt, Walter
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Donald
Brooks, Edwin
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Barnett, Joel
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)


Bence, Cyril
Buchan, Norman
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bessell, Peter
Cant, R. B.
Delargy, Hugh


Bidwell, Sydney
Carmichael, Neil
Dempsey, James


Bishop, E. S.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dewar, Donald


Blackburn, F.
Chapman, Donald
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Coe, Denis
Dobson, Ray


Booth, Albert
Coleman, Donald
Doig, Peter


Boston, Terence
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Driberg, Tom


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Crawshaw, Richard
Dunn, James A.




Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lawson, George
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Eadie, Alex
Leadbitter, Ted
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Ellis, John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Pontland, Norman


English, Michael
Lee, John (Reading)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Ensor, David
Lestor, Miss Joan
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marlhen)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Probert, Arthur


Finch, Harold
Lomas, Kenneth
Rankin, John


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Luard, Evan
Rees, Merlyn


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lubbock, Eric
Richard, Ivor


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Ford, Ben
McCann, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Forrester, John
MacColl, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Fowler, Gerry
MacDermot, Niall
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Freeson, Reginald
Macdonald, A. H.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McGuire, Michael
Rose, Paul


Ginsburg, David
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rowlands, E.


Cray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Ryan, John


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Gregory, Arnold
Mackie, John
Sheldon, Robert


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mackintosh, John P.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Maclennan, Robert
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Silverman, Julius


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Slater, Joseph


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Small, William


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hamling, William
Mallalieu. J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hannan, William
Manuel, Archie
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Harper, Joseph
Mapp, Charles
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Marks, Kenneth



Haseldine, Norman
Marquand, David
Taverne, Dick


Hazell, Bert
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Herrig, Stanley
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mayhew, Christopher
Thornton, Ernest


Hobden, Dennis
Mendelson, John
Tinn, James


Hooley, Frank
Mikardo, Ian
Tomney, Frank


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Millan, Bruce
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Huckfield, Leslie
Molloy, William
Wallace, George


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Charles R. (Openhaw)
Weitzman, David


Hunter, Adam
Moyle, Roland
Wellbeloved, James


Hynd, John
Murray, Albert
White, Mrs. Eirene


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Neal, Harold
Wilkins, W. A.


Janner, Sir Barnett
Newens, Stan
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Ogden, Eric
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
O'Malley, Brian
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oram, Albert E.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Orbach, Maurice
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Orme, Stanley
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Woof, Robert


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)



Judd, Frank
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kelley, Richard
Paget, R. T.
Mr. Walter Harrison and


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Pardoe, John
Mr. Neil McBride.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Blaker, Peter
Clark, Henry


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boardman, Tom (Laicester, S. W.)
Clegg, Walter


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Body, Richard
Costain, A. P.


Awdry, Daniel
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Crowder, F. P.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Currie, G. B. H.


Balniel, Lord
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dance, James


Batsford, Brian
Bruce-Gadyne, J.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bryan, Paul
Dean, Paul


Bell, Ronald
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Burden, F. A.
Doughty, Charles


Biffen, John
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Drayson, G. B.


Biggs-Davison, John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Carlisle, Mark
Errington, Sir Eric


Black, Sir Cyrll
Chichester-Clark, R.
Farr, John







Fortescue, Tim
McMaster, Stanley
Russell, Sir Ronald


Foster, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Walthamstow, F.)
Scott, Nicholas


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maddan, Martin
Sharples, Richard


Glover, Sir Douglas
Marten, Neil
Silvester, Frederick


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maude, Angus
Sinclair, Sir George


Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Speed, Keith


Gower, Raymond
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Stainton, Keith


Grant, Anthony
Miscampbell, Norman
Stodart, Anthony


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury, St. Edmunds)
Monro, Hector
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Gurden, Harold
More, Jasper
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Tapsell, Peter


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Murton, Oscar
Temple, John M.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Tilney, John


Hay, John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Higgins, Terence L.
Nott, John



Hiley, Joseph
Onslow, Cranley
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Hornby, Richard
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Howell, David (Guildford)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wall, Patrick


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walters, Dennis


Iremonger, T. L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Peel, John
Wiggin, A. W.


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Percival, Ian
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Peyton, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pink, R. Bonner
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Kershaw, Anthony
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Woodnutt, Mark


Kitson, Timothy
Pym, Francis
Worsley, Marcus


Lambton, Viscount
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wright, Esmond


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wylie, N. R.


Lane, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Younger, Hn. George


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey



Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Longden, Gilbert
Royle, Anthony
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


MacArthur, Ian

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

REIMBURSEMENT BY THE POST OFFICE OF THE MINISTER OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS

The Post Office may reimburse the Minister the whole or any part of a sum paid by him by way of contribution towards the expenses of an international organisation of which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is a member, being an organisation concerned with activities which the Post Office has power to carry on.—[Mr. Joseph Slater.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): It may be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we also discuss Amendment No. 29, in Clause 7, page 8, to leave out lines 5 to 11.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
As a result of discussion in Committee, we shall be moving Amendments to Clause 7(2) to clarify the relationship between the powers that are set out in Clause 7(1) and (2). The way in which

the re-drafting has been done means that the original sub-paragraph (j) no longer fits into Clause 7(2), which will now specifically cover activities ancillary to the main activities in Clause 7(1).
The new Clause is not of the same kind, because it empowers the Post Office to pay part or all of Her Majesty's Government's contribution towards any international organisation concerned with the Post Office's activities. The power is needed as a direct result of the reorganisation.
International organisations for postal and telecommunications purposes are commonly organisations of which the members are Governments. Examples are the Universal Postal Union and the International Telecommunications Union, which are agencies of the United Nations, and the new Commonwealth Telecommunications Council. These bodies deal with matters ranging from issues affecting international policy to detailed technical studies. At present the Post Office, as a Government Department, fulfils the duties of the United Kingdom as a member of these organisations. In future, the


Minister will be responsible for fulfilling the United Kingdom's obligations in this respect.
The new Post Office will play a full part in the work of these organisations. It will, for example, be a recognised operating agency for the purpose of the International Telecommunications Union. Representatives of the Post Office will be included in the United Kingdom delegations, and will serve on technical subcommittees. Because the Government is a member of these organisations, the Minister will be responsible for paying the United Kingdom contributions. But, as the Post Office will take a prominent part in their activities, many of which are of direct benefit to the postal and telecommunications services, the Post Office must be able to make a payment towards the United Kingdom contribution.
Amendment No. 29 deletes sub-paragraph (j) of Clause 7(2).

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Mawby: The hon. Gentleman has explained why the new Clause should be in the Bill, and none of us complains about that. Amendment No. 29 deletes Clause 7(2)(j). We are debating the replacement of that paragraph by the new Clause. Paragraph (j) lays upon the Corporation the duty to reimburse the Minister and continues in exactly the same words as the new Clause. The new Clause differs only in the opening words—
The Post Office may reimburse the Minister
whereas paragraph (j) confers power on the Post Office—
to reimburse the Minister.
It may be that it is felt that the powers contained in paragraph (j) appear in the wrong place in the Bill and it is merely a case of switching those powers from one part of the Bill to another, but I do not understand why it is necessary to do so, because Clause 7 lays down a list of powers and duties, and I should have thought that this duty should be included with the others.
Is there a basic difference between the new Clause and paragraph (j) to be deleted? The only difference appears to be in the few words at the beginning. Instead of providing that the Post Office has a duty to reimburse, the new Clause

provides that the Post Office may reimburse. As I understand it, the words "the Post Office may" are to be construed in the Bill as "the Post Office shall", so I am puzzled about this slight difference in wording.
If there is no basic difference between the two, there is no reason why we should oppose it. If there is a good reason why this provision should no longer be included in the list of duties but should appear in a separate Clause to emphasise that it is a special duty over and above the duties in Clause 7, I should not disagree with that, but I have an inquiring mind and would like the Assistant Postmaster-General to answer this point.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The Assistant Postmaster-General explained fully the work of the international organisations and why that work should be supported, and we are not entering into debate on that. He also told us why the new Post Office should reimburse the Minister, and again that is perfectly reasonable and we are not entering into debate on that. What he did not explain was the real purpose of the new Clause, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) has said. I can see virtually no difference in substance between the new Clause and Clause 7(2)(j). I do not understand why it is necessary to make this alteration.
The Assistant Postmaster-General gave the House some very quick references which seemed to me to be total double-Dutch. I could not understand the point behind what he was saying. I do not wish to be rude or to raise the temperature of the debate, but I feel that the matter should be explained to hon. Members so that we may follow the reasoning. Could the hon. Gentleman also indicate whether there is any real change in substance brought about by the new Clause?
The Minister referred to discussion in the Committee. I have looked up the HANSARD proceedings of the Committee, and it did not seem that the particular point was discussed, though I appreciate that it may well have been referred to on an earlier Amendment. I am sure the House would be obliged if the Minister would refresh our minds on the point and explain a little more fully the reasoning behind the Clause.

Mr. Hay: With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), I do not think that the matter is quite so simple. I should like to know a little more about the reasons for this change. If one looks at Clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the Bill one sees that they appear under a part of the Bill entitled "Powers and Duties of the Post Office." Powers and duties are not necessarily synonymous. It does not follow that because one has a power to do something that one has a duty to do it as well.
Clause 7 sets out, in the same way as a commercial company would set out matters in its memorandum, what the Post Office has power to do. That is not the same thing as placing upon the company, or in this case upon the Post Office Corporation, the duty to do something. On the face of it, the new Clause does not place upon it such a duty or obligation. It simply gives the power to the Corporation to reimburse the Minister in respect of these particular expenses.
I am completely baffled. I feel that it would have been in order to leave the Bill as drafted, and then, if at a later stage it were considered necessary to place an obligation on the Post Office to reimburse the Minister, it could appear after Clause 9, since Clause 9 sets out the general duty of the Post Office to carry out the functions conferred upon it by Parliament.
I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the matter more clearly. With all respect, when the Minister began his speech he read out the part of the departmental memorandum which had been submitted to him. I hope now that he will try to clear up the point.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I have made further inquiries, and if my remarks were not clear enough

New Clause 3


POWER OF THE MINISTER, PENDING TRANSFER TO THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT FROM COUNTY COUNCILS OF FUNCTIONS CONNECTED WITH ISSUE OF VEHICLE EXCISE LICENCES, TO DIRECT THE POST OFFICE TO ISSUE SUCH LICENCES


5
(1) The Minister may, at the request of a county council and after consultation with the Post Office, give to the Post Office a direction that, during such periods as may be specified in the direction (which shall not begin before the appointed day nor end after the day immediately preceding the transfer date), it shall, in normal business hours, issue on behalf of the council licences under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962.



(2) Subsections (4), (5) and (6) of section 12 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of the foregoing subsection as if any reference in those subsections to subsection (2) of that section included a reference to the foregoing subsection.

when I was seeking to read the brief which was given to me on Clause 7(1), I should now like to add this. The reason is that new Clause 2 will not fit into Clause 7 when it has been altered by Amendment No. 22. There is no difference between the old Clause 7(2)(i) since the new Clause 7(2)(a) relates to a power. It does not create a duty. That is the advice which I have received, and I hope that it meets the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Hay: If we are seeking to place on the Post Office an obligation, should it not create a duty to reimburse the Minister? Should the Clause not say in line 1 that the Post Office shall reimburse the Minister, not that the Post Office "may" reimburse him? The use of the word "may" simply repeats the fact that the power vested in the Post Office is not a duty.

Mr. Slater: There is something in what the hon. Gentleman says, but personally, as between a power and a duty, I would every time go for a power in an issue of this kind.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The hon. Gentleman has referred to Amendment No. 22, to which we shall come later. I do not follow the reason why the addition of the words in Amendment No. 22 necessitate the removal of this matter to an entirely different part of the Bill. It would appear that a different point of much wider significance arises upon Amendment No. 22.

Mr. Slater: Amendment No. 22 is involved with many other Amendments, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would raise this issue when we come to deal with it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause rend a Second Time and added to the Bill.

10
(3) In consideration of its complying with a direction given under this section with reference to a county council, the Post Office shall be entitled to receive payment from that council (of an amount to be determined, in the event of a dispute's arising as to the amount thereof, by the Minister).


15
(4) In this section the expression 'county council' shall be construed in like manner as if it were contained in the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962 and 'the transfer date' means the date which, by virtue of subsection (2) of section 1 of the Vehicle and Driving Licences Act 1969, is appointed by the Minister of Transport for the purposes of subsection (1) of that section.—[Mr. Stonehouse]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this new Clause, we also discuss the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), in line 6, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Stonehouse: The Clause is related to the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill, which will transfer to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport the functions in connection with vehicle licensing which are at present the responsibility of the municipal authorities. The work of issuing licences at post offices will be work carried out for the Government and will accordingly be subject to the direction by the Minister of Posts in Clause 12(1) of the Post Office Bill. But the transfer of licensing functions to the Minister of Transport is not likely to occur until some time after the vesting day of the Corporation. In order to safeguard the position of the local authorities during this period, the new Clause will give the Minister of Posts the power to direct the Post Office to issue licences on their behalf during that period. That power is similar to the one in Clause 12 in respect of various other types of licence.

Mr. Peyton: In the grey world which contains such horrors as "a subsidiary of its" I suppose one ought not to be overwhelmed with surprise when one comes across subsection (2) of this Clause, which reads:
Subsections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 12 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of the foregoing subsection as if any reference in those subsections to subsection (2) of that section included a reference"—
the House will never guess it—
to the foregoing subsection.
I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman would claim or even admit to parenthood of this very nasty little trifle.
Nevertheless, he stands at the Dispatch Box saddled with the responsibility. I must admit that anyone who is a sufficiently toughened campaigner to come through carrying "a subsidiary of its" with him perhaps has had his sense of shame battered to such a state of uselessness that he can expect to get away with wording such as this without a blush.
I am not being flippant, but I believe that the House of Commons has a duty to protest against drafting when it becomes unnecessarily unpleasant and does violence to what is still a rather splendid language, despite the constant desecrations of Whitehall upon it. In blaming Whitehall for its assaults on the English language, it is only fair to admit that Westminster perpetrates a few of its own from time to time. But I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give the House some encouragement to believe that there languishes in the ranks of Government some respect for the English language, elemental and residual though it may be, and some remnant of life out of which new hope may burgeon in the future.
The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for a nauseating piece of drafting, and I am sorry for him. I hope that he will tell us that it is his intention to take an early opportunity to remedy it.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Dobson: I rise on one point which causes me some concern. In line 4, the Clause says that the Post Office
… shall, in normal business hours, issue on behalf of the council licences under the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1962.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will say what he means by "normal business hours". I suspect that what he has in mind is the normal hours of business, which are now 8.30 or 9 until 5.30 or 6, depending on the location of the post office.
There is a difficulty in this connection, and it is that there is an agreement


between the Post Office and the unions concerned with the transaction of vehicle excise licence business to the effect that such transactions shall take place on Saturdays only when the county council office is open. As it stands, the Clause suggests that a wider sale of vehicle excise licences will be possible in future, and I shall feel extremely distressed if the Clause means that post office counters will be supplying vehicle licences when the county council offices are closed. That would be contrary to the existing agreements and would cause consternation to post office staff.
The agreement was reached after a long period of discussion. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reassure me on this point because if the Clause went through without qualification it would cause a great deal of controversey.

Mr. Hay: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will listen to what the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) has said. In the other scale, however, I want to place the convenience of the public. It is all very well to work out a series of agreements relating to the hours during which post offices shall transact this kind of business, making sure that they coincide with times when council offices are open. However, I hope that the convenience of the public will be taken into account.
I want to deal with two other matters because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), I am an admirer of the English language and I am horrified to see so many blemishes in the Bill. My hon. Friend draws attention in his Amendment to a jaw-cracking subsection which I will not repeat. I have found another gem.
In line 11 of the new Clause, in the middle of a subsection dealing with the possibility of a dispute arising, for some extraordinary reason the draftsman has used the words
… in the event of a dispute's arising …
That is novel. One sees the same horror perpetrated in line 36 of Clause 12. At the beginning of subsection (5), the draftsmen say:
In the event of a dispute's arising …".
Here, again, is a horror. Indeed, there is yet another on page 8, line 23, which is even worse because there is a reference

to the prosecution of research and the advantages which may accrue to the Post Office
… as a consequence of research's being prosecuted into them",
"research's" being spelt "research" with an apostrophe "s". I think that the draftsman is genitive mad. This is another example of the double genitive that we had earlier.
I cannot understand why this not only inelegant but downright ugly language is being used. It would have been perfectly simple, good English, absolutely comprehensible to everybody, if line 11 of new Clause 3 simply said,
(of an amount to be determined, in the event of a dispute arising as to the amount thereof, by the Minister).
I ask the Postmaster-General to have a look at some of this drafting. We are not raising silly, niggling little points. It behoves this House to try to keep some kind of control over the use of language, not just because it happens to offend the susceptibilities, but because—and this is the point—these horrors, when they creep in, are repeated in later Acts because they are taken as precedents.
Another point on which I am not clear from the Postmaster-General's explanation is why it is necessary to take power in subsection (1) of the new Clause to give the Post Office a direction. This is the customary way that the Minister would exercise a reserve power, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the power to give a direction is usually kept very much in reserve; it is a sledge hammer. Although I cannot speak from memory on the context of this very long and involved Bill, I think that there is a provision that the Minister has to report to Parliament the occasions on which he has given a direction. This is well precedented in a number of the other nationalisation statutes. But I wonder why, in the context of the matter that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in moving the new Clause, it is necessary for the Minister to take the power to give the Post Office a diretction to do this comparatively minor and unimportant piece of business. It would be equally easy for it to read,
The Minister may, at the request of a county council and after consultation with the Post Office, request the Post Office, during such period as may be specified … in normal business hours, to issue, on behalf of the council, licences under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962.
Why not simply make it a request?
I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would look at it again. If he cannot answer now why he must have the power to give a direction, I ask him to look at it again in another place to see whether it is really necessary.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The principle behind the new Clause seems entirely unexceptional, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has done us a service by reminding us of what he rightly referred to as this "nauseating piece of drafting". My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) also pinpointed another piece of rather bad drafting in the phrase "dispute's arising". I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will note these things and perhaps at some later stage will be able to tidy them up.

Mr. Peyton: I hope that when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) repeats what my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) said just now about "dispute's raising", he will spell it out so that those who hear it without a copy of the Bill before them will get the full horror of the apostrophe "s". Otherwise it will be interpreted as something quite different. I hope my hon. Friend will take the point.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I understand my hon. Friend's point, and I remind the House that an apostrophe has been used before the "s" here and in other parts of the Bill. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will be able to give us some encouragement about this.
Subsection (3) says that the Post Office
shall be entitled to receive payments from that council (of an amount to be determined, in the event of a dispute's arising as to the amount thereof, by the Minister).
By what yardstick will the council pay the Post Office? Is there to be a return on capital, or is it to be a percentage of turnover? What kinds of overheads, if any, are to be included? We ought to have some details about this, because the Minister may have to adjudicate in the event of a dispute between the local authority and the Post Office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley rightly referred to the extraordinary way in which the requirement of a direction is included. Surely this is taking things too far? Surely a

direction would be much more appropriate as a reserve power to be used in the event of a dispute? I think that the Minister ought to tell us why he has seen fit to provide for a direction in all these cases.

Mr. Stonehouse: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) raised a question about normal business hours. I should like to make it clear to the House that this does not necessarily imply that these transactions will be carried out throughout normal business hours. They will be carried out within the period of the normal business, and the existing agreements with the staff will be continued because these meet the convenience of the Post Office in the organisation of its business.
The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) referred to the convenience of the public. The public are also interested in the other services which the Post Office provides, and if they find that they cannot get access to those services because the Post Office is doing this work, they could well raise objections. I believe that the present arrangement is reasonable and fair, and that is why we are proposing that it should continue.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he will restrict the hours during which people can tax motor vehicles at Post Offices? Surely to do that would be very much against the general convenience of the public?

Mr. Stonehouse: No. That has always applied, because if a local authority is closed for this purpose on a Saturday, and particularly in the afternoon, it is appropriate that the Post Office should not transact this business at that time, and I am glad to note that he hon. Member for Henley agrees with me about that.
During our last debate I was very much influenced by the points put forward by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) who has an incisive and attractive mind, and brings many useful ideas to the Floor of the House, but on this occasion I entirely disagree with him. If we were to accept his Amendment, which I appreciate is a probing Amendment, we would put the Post Office in a relationship with the Minister which I think the House would agree would be inappropriate. The Post Office would not be


under any specific obligation to comply with a direction, and there would be no way of settling that argument, and there would be no obligation on the Minister to take account of the practical capabilities of the Post Office before the direction was made.
Where subsection (2) refers to:
Subsections (4), (5) and (6) of section 12 of this Act",
anybody with an atom of intelligence can see what that means. By using this shorthand that is the usual form in Parliamentary drafting, a lot of unnecessary words have been avoided; and I should have thought the hon. Member for Yeovil would applaud economy in words, because subsection (4) sets out and makes clear that the Post Office is complying with the directions set out in subsections 1, 2 and 3 of Clause 12. If we did not use the shorthand in subsection (2) of new Clause 3 all that would have to be spelled out again. The hon. Gentleman, who has sufficient intelligence to look up Clause 12 and see what it means, must give other people similar credit for being able to look it up.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Peyton: I have read Clause 12 and I believe that quality and clarity are sometimes to be preferred to economy. When those who never hesitate to use 100 words where one will do plead economy as an excuse for ugliness I am absolutely askance.

Mr. Stonehouse: I do not think that this is particularly ugly. I think it is poetry. I think it is delightful.

Mr. Hay: Would the hon. Gentleman care to set it to music?

Mr. Stonehouse: If we go on long enough tonight I will do my best, but I believe it would be a waste of space to attempt to spell out again all the provisions of subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Clause 12; and the wording is perfectly appropriate. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) raised the question of what is to be the yardstick of the payment made to the Post Office. It will be to ensure not only that overhead

expenses are met but that there should be a fair contribution to the financial objective of the postal side of the business which is now expressed as 2 per cent. of expenditure. I hope that with those explanations the House will see fit to accept the Clause.

Mr. Hay: I raised two points, one about "dispute's" and the other about why direction is necessary.

Mr. Stonehouse: I did not want to delay the House longer, but this direction is a reserve power. Naturally, the Post Office would be expected to agree with the Minister, after discussion in an amicable way. But if we are to have reserve power we have to spell it out in this way. It is suggested that we should have a series of consultations and that that will be that; but it does not settle the point. In the event of a dispute who makes at decision? If we were to accept the wording suggested by the hon. Member for Henley the matter would be in considerable doubt. No one would know whether the Post Office or the Minister was to make the final decision in the event of dispute. This wording has the virtue of clarity and therefore I should think the hon. Member for Yeovil would give it his 100 per cent. support, the clarity being that the Minister may make a direction. I believe the House would applaud that.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Of course, subsection (3), regarding the arrangement for payment is activated only in the event of the Minister giving a direction. Surely, it is meant to apply to all circumstances where the Post Office is doing this work on behalf of a local authority.

Mr. Stonehouse: Of course, there will be an arrangement for payment. This is put in to make it clear that though there is a direction, nevertheless, the Post Office shall be entitled to receive the payment on the lines I have been describing. I take the observation that the drafting point is something we can look at and I see no particular objection to the apostrophe; but I will consider it with my advisers.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4


REMUNERATION OF POST OFFICE FOR ISSUING DOG AND GAME LICENCES IN ENLAND AND WALES



(1) Any sums falling to be paid by the Minister of Housing and Local Government to the Post Office in pursuance of any agreement to which he, it and a council in England or Wales are parties, being


5
(a) an agreement providing for the issue by the Post Office, on behalf of the council, of licences of all or any of the following kinds, namely, licences for dogs, licences for dealing in game and licences for killing game, and the payment by that Minister to the Post Office of sums in consideration of its issuing the licences; or


10
(b) an agreement providing for the payment by that Minister to the Post Office of sums in consideration of its issuing, on behalf of the council, licences of all or any of those kinds in compliance with a direction under section 12 of this Act;



shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.


15
(2) Where licences of any such kinds as aforesaid are, in compliance with a direction under section 12 of this Act, issued by the Post Office on behalf of a council in England or Wales during a period during which an agreement is in force between the council and the Minister of Housing and Local Government providing for the payment to the Post Office by that Minister of sums in consideration of its issuing the licences (not being an agreement to which the Post Office is a party), the Post Office shall be entitled, in consideration of its issuing the licences, to receive payment from that Minister (of an amount to be determined, in the event of a dispute's arising as to the amount thereof, by the Minister); and any sums falling to be paid by that Minister in pursuance of this subsection shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.


20


25
(3) Where licences of any such kinds as aforesaid are, in compliance with a direction under section 12 of this Act, issued by the Post Office on behalf of a council in England or Wales during a period during which no agreement is in force between the council and the Minister of Housing and Local Government providing for the payment to the Post Office by that Minister of sums in consideration of its issuing the licences, the Post Office shall be entitled, in consideration of its issuing the licences, to receive payment from the council (of an amount to be determined, in the event of a dispute's arising as to the amount thereof, by the Minister).—[Mr. Stonehouse]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this new Clause the House will discuss the three sub-Amendments (a), in line 5, leave out 'licences for dogs'; (b) in line 19, leave out 'Minister' and insert 'Treasury'; and (c) in line 29, leave out 'Minister' and insert 'Treasury', and Amendment No. 59, in page 13, line 17, at end insert 'in Scotland'.

Mr. Stonehouse: We now arrive at a very interesting and emotional part of the Bill. The main purpose of the Clause is to allow the continuation of the present arrangements under Section 19(5) of the Post Office Act, 1961, by which the Post Office is paid for issuing dog and game licences in England and Wales by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, otherwise the local authorities which receive the revenue and which under Clause 132 will become responsible after vesting day for paying the cost of collection would be out of pocket through the change of status of the Post Office. I am sure that hon. Members will agree

that that would be unfair and will generally approve the Clause.

Mr. Peyton: As the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) just now to say that he would look at the significance of always equipping "dispute" with an apostrophe "s", I will not weary him by repeating the point here. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to say to you, with profound respect—I of course have great respect for the Chair—that I was particularly gratified that sub-Amendment (a) should have been selected and that I should in no way have been suspected of irony in wishing to talk on this.
Sub-Amendment (a) seeks to leave out "licences for dogs", a question which concerns the Prime Minister and his followers in at least a metaphorical sense with which we are all familiar. It would be very unkind and unfair if I were to trespass upon the kindness of the Chair in selecting the Amendment. I can only say that I hope that it will be accepted that in tabling the Amendment I had in my mind thoughts of great kindness towards hon. Members opposite


some of whose relationships with the authorities of their party have, I understand, been damaged by recent events. I thought that if the dog licensing system were to be abolished it would be greatly to their benefit. Even if it were prejudicial to the interests of the Prime Minister, I thought that this was a misfortune which I personally could stomach.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has had more latitude than the Chair ordinarily allows on these occasions.

Mr. Peyton: I am deeply grateful to you, as always, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I assure you that I shall not press the point further.
A serious question which I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is how much it costs to collect a dog licence fee. I strongly suspect that this is a very unprofitable exercise and that a good deal of time, money and labour is spent on collecting the 7s. 6d. per dog per year and that the exercise shows no benefit to anyone.
In the good old days—they seem awfully long ago now—when there was a Tory Government I once inquired of the Treasury what the cost was. My right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), who was then Financial Secretary, was answering a Question about the amount of revenue collected in the form of dog licences.

Mr. Ridley: It was my Question.

Mr. Peyton: I believe that it was. I asked a supplementary question the exact form of which I do not remember. My right hon. Friend's answer was interesting. He told us that dog licences had been thrust upon us by the need to finance the French war. I assume that to be the war against Napoleon. It has been a singular misfortune under which we have languished ever since that nobody has seen fit to tell the Treasury that the war against France was over and that Napoleon was dead. It would be useful if the Treasury could be persuaded to digest this information, because it might then be brought to examine the advisability of dog

licences. I cannot help but adhere to an old-fashioned prejudice, that if we are to have dog licences it might as well be worth the trouble and expense of collecting the fee, otherwise we should abolish them. But to collect a sum which shows no profit whatever must be foolish even in the ranks of those where foolish propositions grow in fertile ground.
There are a couple of other points to which I attach no great importance. As it is accustomed to the rôle of referee, it would perhaps be right for the Treasury to be responsible for entering into the matter as referee in the event of disputes arising as opposed to the Minister. I would not wish to press that point very hard, but I should be grateful if the Minister could give us some up-to-date information which I am sure it would be difficult to extract from the Treasury, because it would be profoundly shocked to be asked about the cost of dog licences. It would feel that the next suggestion would be that the licence should be abolished and that the abolition of a licence costing 7s. 6d. per dog per year would imperil our war effort against Napoleon. That fearful news would shake the old-fashioned loyalties and confidence of the Treasury to a great extent I hope that perhaps the Treasury will be persuaded gradually—Ministers must not do this quickly with the Treasury—to let the light dawn on it and be told that the war against France is over, Napoleon is dead and therefore we do not need dog licences which, I strongly suspect, do not justify the trouble involved in collecting the fee.

9.0 p.m.

Sir Frank Pearson: My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) referred to his Amendment with too much diffidence. He depreciated its importance. After his speech, I felt that the point justified a certain amount of debate, though possibly not a long debate. We are lucky that we have been given the opportunity to talk about a matter which might not arise in the normal course of the business of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil mentioned that dog licences originated out of the need to raise finance for the Napoleonic wars. Many great anomalies in our tax system have arisen through strange circumstances. Mr. Gladstone


had a reason for introducing Income Tax. He introduced it purely as a temporary measure, but it has continued and it plagues us to this day. Who can say that the relatively minor imposition involved in dog licences will not become a social evil? Therefore, I welcome the Amendment. Are dog licences a reasonable method of raising what is a minimal revenue? When I consider all the provisions in the new Clause for avoiding anomalies, I wonder whether this can be a good tax.
Apart from the administrative anomalies, what are the merits of the tax? There are many breeds and types of dog which should not be subject to it, like dogs for the blind. Are they a proper subject for a tax, however small? It is always said that if a tax is to be fair it must be capable of reasonably efficient collection. Every hon. Member knows that hundreds of dogs are not the subject of licence fees. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) will know many shepherds with dogs for which they pay no licence fee. A tax like this, which can be evaded, must be thoroughly bad. I hope that the Minister will try to justify the basis of dog licences.
Whether they should be collected through the Post Office is another matter. The Post Office is to become purely commercial, so many of its old functions should no longer be given to it. Other licences, such as those for dealing in game and killing game, might not be considered the functions of a commercial organisation like the modern Post Office in the modern technological age. Motor licences are issued through local authorities, and perhaps they should issue these licences.
We know how difficult it is at many sub-post offices to do all the Post Office paper work and to run a small shop as well and issue licences may be a considerable additional burden. Why has the issue of licences been left with a commercially-operated Post Office? Has the Minister considered allowing this function to be performed by local authorities in the same way as they issue motor licences?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is it not a fact that car road fund licences are issued both by local authorities and the Post Office?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I do not think that the question of road fund licences comes within the ambit of the Clause. I have been questioning in my mind the inclusion of the whole principle of the issue of licences for dogs. Hon. Members are concerned with the principle of licences being issued by the Post Office rather than with the question of licensing as a whole.

Sir Frank Pearson: On a point of order. Would it be in order to debate the question of leaving the matter in the hands of the Post Office or having this function performed by local authorities, setting aside the question of licensing as such?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is in order. The question whether dogs should be licensed is a different matter entirely.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. With respect to the Chair, both the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) have spoken about the substantive issue. Is it not in order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but he must not question the ruling of the Chair. It is difficult for the Chair to decide what the issue of principle is here. It is clear to me now, and I have ruled accordingly.

Mr. Lewis: Further to the point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have disposed of the point of order. The hon. Gentleman should not pursue the matter further.

Mr. Lewis: But you have not yet heard my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he wished to speak further to a point on which I had ruled. If he has a new point of order to raise, I will, of course, hear it.

Mr. Lewis: Two speeches have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite dealing with an aspect of licensing. Presumably their remarks were in order, or they would have been ruled out of order. Are not hon. Members on this side entitled to debate what they said and what must have been in order because it was not ruled out of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is seeking to question a Ruling of the Chair. I cannot allow him to do that.

Mr. Lewis: Are we in the position that certain things can be said by hon. Gentleman opposite and we cannot reply to them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the difficulties that face the Chair. This has been an obscure and difficult matter to decide. Perhaps the Chair was slow in giving its Ruling; but a Ruling has been given and the hon. Gentleman must not question it.

Sir Frank Pearson: While we are not in order in debating the question of the issue of licences by local authorities, presumably we are in order in debating the relevance of the issue of licences by the Post Office.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is perfectly in order.

Sir Frank Pearson: I have no doubt that the hon. Member for West Ham, North will be entitled to debate that aspect if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I trust that the Minister will reply to the points I have made.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) raised an important point which was not adduced in Committee. It is appropriate that the House should spend some time analysing whether or not this is a good provision.
When my hon. Friend referred to a Question having been put to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer many years ago—at that time my hon. Friend and I were novices in the House—about dog licences, my hon. Friend was mistaken in thinking that the Answer given on that occasion resulted from a supplementary question asked by him. I must remind him that it was I who put a Question all those years ago. The Answer was given to my Question, not to his supplementary question. My Question sought to elicit what was the cost of collecting a dog licence. I speak from memory, but I think the Answer was, considerably more than 7s. 6d. In the preamble to the Answer the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave the House the information that the dog licence was collected to pay for the Napoleonic wars with France.
I think I am right in saying that in those days the licence came in at the rate of 2s. 6d. a dog and it was increased to 7s. 6d. some time during the nineteenth century. I think that students of economics will agree that a charge of 7s. 6d. in the nineteenth century has become worth a lot more now in view of the depreciation of the value of our currency. This would be a very suitable day on which to drop the dog licence altogether. As my hon. Friend pointed out, we are no longer at war with France.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid the hon. Member is transgressing on the point which I ruled out of order. He may submit that the Post Office may drop the administrative issue of licences, but he may not discuss the principle of licensing generally.

Mr. Ridley: I submit that the Post Office should cease to issue dog licences. Rather than anyone else issuing them, they should not be necessary because of the desire of hon. Members in all parts of the House for better Franco-British relations in view of the news this week. This is a most appropriate moment for this Amendment to be moved. It would suggest that the war with our nearest neighbour over the Channel, symbolised by the dog licence, has been brought to an end.
It seems crazy that this facility should be carried out by the Post Office. There is a real difficulty, because the Clause contains a provision that the Post Office shall be reimbursed by the Minister for the cost of issuing all licences, in particular dog licences, and the administrative cost of collection. We know from previous debates that the administrative cost of collection will include the appropriate share of overheads, interest charges and other expenses, which are properly attributable to the particular function of collecting dog licence fees.
My hon. Friend made another good point when he said that it should not be left to the Minister to arbitrate on what is the cost of collecting dog licence fees in the case of a dispute between the Minister and the Post Office. He suggested that the Treasury should do this. I have not frequently known my hon. Friend to be an advocate of the Treasury to do anything in any situation. Indeed, he is noted in circles wider than this


House for his endemic distrust of the Treasury, which I find admirable. I am sorry therefore to find him slipping on this occasion and trying to insert the Treasury as a referee between the Minister and the Post Office in the event of a dispute.
It would seem that the Treasury is biased in this matter, as is the Minister, because, if the cost of collection of this tax is more than the yield of the tax, as I believe to be the case, and the Treasury were being obstinate and biased about it and sticking to this ridiculous eighteenth century tax, it would not arbitrate in at all a fair and unbiased manner between the Minister and the Post Office in the event of a dispute as to the cost of collection. Suppose that the tax costs ten bob a dog to collect and that is what the Post Office applies for. Does anyone seriously imagine that the Treasury would agree that it costs ten bob to collect a dog licence when it produced only 7s. 6d. a dog, and therefore there was a clear loss of 2s. 6d. from the start? The Treasury cannot be relied upon to be independent about such a matter.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Peyton: I thank my hon. Friend for having shed light on the errors of my proposal. My only excuse is that I feel that the Treasury would be better doing only a little mischief, as it would here, than those big mischiefs which are its habit.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is obviously trying to give the Treasury a sweetener in view of those things of which he has tried to deprive it over his long and distinguished Parliamentary career.
It is ridiculous that taxes of this sort should still be levied—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing not whether certain taxes should be levied but whether the Post Office should claim remuneration for collecting them.

Mr. Ridley: I was about to press the Postmaster-General to tell us the cost of collecting dog licences. As soon as the Bill comes into force the first thing the new Post Office will do is to ask the Minister for a sum of money to cover the cost of the collection of this

tax, so the figure will be known within a year or so, and we might as well know now. This is an excellent opportunity to smoke out the Government as to whether they are really continuing to charge a tax which probably costs more to administer than it brings in.
The whole provision is very unsatisfactory. Dog licences should be abolished, but if they are to be retained they should not be collected by the Post Office.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If they are to be abolished, they will not be abolished by this Amendment.

Mr. John Farr: I cannot agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) in this matter. I feel that the collection by the Post Office of the various licences referred to in the new Clause is useful and effective. If dog licences are not to be issued by the Post Office, how are members of the public to obtain them? Post Offices in country areas rely to a certain extent on the little commission they draw from the issue of dog licences, game licences, and even licences to deal in game. It may be a small matter to many hon. Members, but to many village postmasters and postmistresses with very little income it is quite an occasion when somebody comes in to buy a dog licence.
If the House accepts the Amendment and licences for dogs are omitted, there will be, to put it mildly, a superfluity of dogs around the country. I was impressed by what my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) said. He recommended that guide dogs for the blind should not be licensed, and I think that all hon. Members would agree. But if the Amendment is accepted and the machinery for the issue of those licences is destroyed, there will be a tremendous increase in the number of dogs in the country. One example of the tragic consequences of a large number of superfluous dogs is that on occasions when I have driven along the M1 I have seen people who want to dispose of dogs stop by the motorway for a second or two, release a dog from a bag and drive off. No hon. Member would like to see that sort of treatment of animals exaggerated, as I am sure it would be if the Amendment were accepted.
Dogs should be licensed, the existing machinery for collection should be continued, and I should also like to see cats licensed.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: When the Postmaster-General made his rather brief introductory speech, he said we were entering upon an interesting and emotional part of the Bill, but until I heard my hon. Friend speak I did not realise how interesting and emotional this new Clause was.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not get too interesting and too emotional or lie will be out of order.

Mr. Gilmour: I hope I shall become interesting, Mr. Speaker. but certainly not too emotional. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) pointed out that, according to evidence given by the Treasury for the inclusion of the dog licence in this new Clause, the licence was originally due to the disbelief—according to my hon. Friend—that Napoleon had ever died. He thinks that the Treasury still believes that Napoleon is still living, which, in truth, gives an entirely new slant to the Napoleonic legend.

Mr. Peyton: All my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said is that we were jointly informed by a Treasury spokesman—none other than my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury some years ago—that dog licences had been introduced to finance the war against the French. The omission I was commenting on is that no one has told the Treasury that it is not necessary to keep the beastly licences on because the war against the French is over.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must rule Napoleon out of order and remind the House that we are discussing not whether there should be dog licences but whether the Post Office should issue them and receive remuneration for doing so.

Mr. Gilmour: I am sure that it will be in order if I wonder whether there will be any net remuneration from this tax, because if the tax is a loss I imagine that the Treasury will have a strong case for saying that it will not remunerate the

Post Office for making a loss on the tax while, equally, the Post Office might say that it is bad luck on the Post Office because it does not want to collect the tax anyway. I do not know how such a conflict would be resolved.

Mr. Ridley: I can tell my hon. Friend how the conflict would be resolved. Licences would be imposed on cats, budgerigars, hedgehogs, hamsters and all sorts of pets in order to collect more revenue.

Mr. Gilmour: That would be a very emotional subject, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil hinted—I thought regretfully—that it might be necessary to raise the dog licence fee, I hoped that he was not speaking seriously because those of us who have had experience of the animal lobby would not relish such a proceeding.
The main point here is whether or not the Post Office will be spending its time and money usefully in collecting this tax; so I hope the right hon. Gentleman will favour us with a rather longer speech in reply and tell us whether or not the Post Office makes a loss on dog licences.

Mr. Stonehouse: I hope to remain in order and not incur your displeasure, Mr. Speaker, and so I will be unable to follow up the various points made about the principle of the tax. I want to give some information in response to the other questions raised, however.
The gross yield of this licence fee is £1 million a year and the cost of issue is just over £260,000 a year, so there is not a loss. There is, indeed, a surplus. The question the House is considering is who shall pay the Post Office for the expenses it incurs in doing this business.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for his useful contribution. As he rightly said, sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses value this part of their work. It is tremendous convenience to members of the public to be able to go into their post office to pay these rather minor fees. It would be unfortunate if we were to accept the suggestion that the Post Office should not carry out this business. As for the Post Office, this is commercial business, because the Post Office, under recent dispensations is being paid not only the cost, but also a contribution to the financial objective, which is expressed as 2


per cent. of expenditure. It is good business for the Post Office and the Post Office Corporation will wish to continue to do this, providing it is reimbursed in the way I have described.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) suggested that the Treasury should be the Ministry deciding questions of dispute about the amount of payment to be made to the Post Office. I beg to disagree, and I hope that the House will not accept his advice. The Ministry of Posts is the Ministry which is aware of the exacting costing and responsibilities of the Post Office, and it would be most appropriate for the Minister with overall responsibility to have this responsibility. The issue here is clear. If we were to accept the Amendment the effect would be that the local authorities, rather than the Minister of Housing, would have to pay the Post Office for the expenses it incurs, and I believe that the House would not wish that. It would be most unfair to local authorities.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that someone from his Department gave evidence to the Estimates Committee that the cost of issuing a wireless licence was ls? Could not some sort of figure feature permanently in the Bill? Why does it cost more to write out a dog licence than a wireless licence?

Mr. Stonehouse: The information which the hon. Gentleman has quoted, and I am speaking off the cuff, is incorrect. I believe that the cost is not 1s. but 7s. In any case, we should want to look at this a little more closely before we attempt to make these comparisons. The figures that I have given about the cost in this case are quite accurate and they show the proportion of costs as being just over 25 per cent.

Mr. Tom Boardman: If the cost. of issuing a T.V. licence is 7s. how does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that with the figures quoted for dog licences, since it surely involves no greater work? He said that only 25 per cent. of the cost is involved in the issue of dog licences. It seems to be a peculiar ratio.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: indicated assent.

Captain Orr: In that case, the proposal is wholly admirable and I shall support it.
One can think of many other matters on which one would wish to question the Minister. For example, if the Post Office, by using its licensing powers, began discriminating against private local mobile radio schemes and wished to extend its monopoly into this sphere, would I be entitled to ask the Minister why licences were being refused to a group of doctors?

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: indicated assent.

Captain Orr: In that case, the new Clause is equally admirable and I will support it.
In Committee we spoke at length about the monopoly powers of the Corporation and I instanced a variety of cases in which difficulty might occur, including data processing and pipelines. I hope, if the new Clause becomes law, that we shall be able to keep an eye on matters of this kind and question the Minister.
We should not forget that it would be relatively easy for a Minister who did not want to answer Questions to claim that all of these matters came within the day-to-day administration of the Post Office. I do not know how the sponsors of the new Clause would get round that one.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: We are breaking new ground. A body of practice would be established as a result of the activities of the Table Office; but certainly a greater range of possibility would exist if the new Clause were accepted than is the case with existing corporations.

Captain Orr: I hope that that will be so, although it is a forlorn hope. I put some better propositions in Committee. I regret that the hon. Member for Putney did not support me then. A forlorn hope is better than no hope, and I will, therefore, support his proposal.

Mr. James Dempsey: Will not the words
… other than those of day-to-day administration
take the steam out of the new Clause and reduce the ability of the new Minister to answer Parliamentary Questions to the ability which Ministers at present have in respect of other nationalised undertakings?
Most other undertakings either produce or manufacture. Different Questions will arise through the operation of this Corporation, because the new Post Office will be providing consumer services, involving the organisation of mail, the telephone service and other essential items in the lives of every citizen. One cannot, therefore, make a strict comparison between those sort of services and the functions performed by other publicly-owned basic industries.
It would appear that if one were anxious to raise a Question under the present Clause one would ask for a general direction. It could be illogical and in some cases foolish, but it would be done so that the Question could be accepted by the Table and a supplementary question could be asked. I do not think the proposed Clause helps very much. I might wish to raise a Question about mail from a soldier in Cyprus, who asked that it should be delivered intact to a constituent, being interrupted. I would not be able to ask a Question about that under this Clause.
Once we indulge in the extension of enterprise there is a lack of public accountability whether we like it or not. We are giving the Executive more power and still more power. The danger is the growth of the Executive and the development of remote control.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss on this Clause the growth of the Executive, except so far as it can be checked by the Clause itself.

Mr. Dempsey: That is true, Mr. Speaker, but this Clause would mean that I would no longer be able to ask Questions, for example, about the development of delivery of 4d. mail as I can at the moment. We are giving more power to the Executive whether we like it or not. This is disturbing and it makes it more difficult to bring about a democratisation of certain services administered from this House. It is on those lines that the Bill should develop. If I thought this Clause was necessary I would be happy to support it, but, like the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), I have doubts about it.

Mr. Driberg: It is better than nothing.

Mr. Dempsey: It may be argued that it is better than nothing, but I cannot see


any great difference between the Clause and the existing opportunity afforded to hon. Members to put Questions about the nationalised industries.
If I have to ask for a general direction, whether it be the coal, steel or electricity industry, or to get to know something about the operation of the new Post Office Department, I cannot see that there

would be any difference in practice. I am expressing my views which are based on apprehension. The apprehension is lack of democratisation in administering services from this House. This is to be deplored and regretted. I hope my right hon. Friend will try to give us some hope that he intends to introduce a greater degree of public accountability for this service than that which operates for the others at present.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: This little debate on the new Clause seems to me to be a considerable Parliamentary occasion. I have been much moved by the words of the proposers of the new Clause in looking back through the history of other nationalised corporations, and regretting what has been done in allowing the House to be deprived of its right to inquire into publicly-owned corporations to any degree. The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) expounded this with great ability, and I heartily endorse his sentiments.
The constituents whom I have the honour to represent are quite unable to understand how it is that a Member of Parliament should not be allowed to inquire on their behalf into the maladministration, mistakes or whatever that go on in the corporations already nationalised. Without being patronising, I would say that the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have seen the light on this matter. I could not sufficiently praise their courage in doing so, especially on a day when the Whips will be replaced by scorpions. I give them my warmest support, and again commend their political courage in putting the new Clause forward.
But I join other hon. Members in questioning why they did not go the whole distance and include day-to-day business. I suppose that they were got at even by the relatively easy régime that has existed on the other side of the House until now, and therefore flinched from including it.
I am convinced that the House will come to regret it most bitterly if the Government do not take the opportunity so ably provided for them as a partial get-out from the awful jam Governments, Oppositions and hon. Members always find themselves in when they set up a nationalised corporation. I plead with the Minister to allow the new Clause to be accepted. I know that it goes against the doctrines that have ruled hitherto in the party opposite, but many doctrines that hitherto applied to the Labour Party have been abandoned in the past few years, and this is one which would be unwept if it were abandoned. I plead with the Government to accept the new Clause because I believe that every

Member of Parliament and every voter sincerely wants this to happen.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I shall not comment on what the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) said about Whips and scorpions, except perhaps to remind him that in the original which he had in mind the threat to chastise with scorpions turned out in practice to be an empty one.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss Rehoboam in this context.

Mr. Mikardo: I humbly accept your correction, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) asked what the purpose of the new Clause is. My answer, in the hallowed phrase, is that its purpose is the avoidance of doubt, because all that it seeks to do is to apply to the new Corporation the answerability to the House which applies to every existing public Corporation.
Now I have an answer to the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham and my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), with whose speech I largely agree, who wanted to know why we put in the phrase
… other than those of day-to-day administration.
If we had not, we should have been asking for a greater degree of accountability to the House on the part of the new Corporation than is given to it, with the agreement of both sides of the House, by the Railways Board, the Steel Corporation, the Gas Council and all the rest. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I agree—why not?
10.30 p.m.
I have never believed in autonomous public corporations and I am not being wise after the event. I opposed the thing from the first stage in 1942, when the concept was first delivered, fathered by Herbert Morrison out of the body of the General Council of the T.U.C., or vice versa—it is not for me to say who was the father or the mother. But between the two they hatched it up and sprang it on the Labour movement, and I have opposed it since then.
Nevertheless, both Labour and Conservative Governments since then—and


this House without real demur—have accepted that the nationalised industries should be run by public corporations with a certain degree of autonomy which included relieving them of the obligation of having to account through the Minister to this House for their day-to-day administration.
I am with my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie in that I would be happier if the words he referred to were left out. But if they had been my right hon. Friend could well have said two things. First, he could have asked, "Why are you asking that this Corporation should be more answerable than the House has ever demanded of other corporations?" It would have been a good question and difficult to answer. Secondly, he could have said, "If you include answerability to the House on day-to-day administration you will gravely interfere with the ability of the Corporation to operate on a commercial basis." That I would not have been so quick to accept, but it is precisely what the House has always accepted.
Therefore, if these words had been omitted, my right hon. Friend could easily have demolished the new Clause and, of course, we do not want him to demolish it, so we included them in order to make crystal clear that we want the Corporation to be responsible to the House, although no more and no less than the British Railways Board, the British Steel Corporation, the National Coal Board and the other corporations.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman may be making it difficult for the House later on. Does he suggest that, if new Clause 6 is not accepted but voted down, we shall not be able to ask Questions of the same type as in the case of the other corporations? If he is going to accept that in order to get the Clause through, we might be more inhibited later on than we would be otherwise.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman has, characteristically, anticipated the point. If all we are seeking to do by this new Clause is to lay down for the Corporation what has grown up by custom and practice and the gentle dictates of the Table to be the behaviour of the

House towards the other corporations, and if we are doing no more than apply to this new Corporation what applies to the others, hon. Members may well ask, "Why do we have to spell it out in words?" They could also argue that, if the new Clause had never been introduced they could have continued their practice in every way.
My answer to that is simple. We do not even know yet what Minister is going to be the sponsoring Minister for this Corporation. We do not know whether he is going to be in this House or in another place. We do not know whether, in the default of the thing being spelt out, someone might not try to read something in the Bill which would give ground for a lower accountability of the Corporation to the House than the other corporations have got.
That was why we spelled it out, for the avoidance of doubt. The original series of nationalisation Acts of which, in respect of relations between the Corporation, the Minister and Parliament, this is a pretty faithful copy, were not clearly written—that is the series from 1940 to 1950. Looking at those Acts we will not find a clear or complete acceptance of the matters hon. Members can press a Minister on. The very term "day-to-day administration" is pretty imprecise.
What has happened in the last 20 years is that in their wisdom, various Speakers have given advice, and the Table has built up a good body of case law, amended from time to time. Some Questions are now admitted to Ministers about public corporations which would certainly not have got past the Table in 1951 or 1953. Like all good laws, the administrators have sensibly varied and amended it to keep up with the needs of the times. We have now reached the situation when a lot of Questions are asked about what might even be called day-to-day administration in the public corporations, and we get away with it.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that Questions may be asked but they do not often get answered?

Mr. Mikardo: My experience, which is longer than the hon. Gentleman's, is that most Questions are answered if the Member who asks them is persistent and clever


enough to ensure that he gets an answer. That applies to some hon. Members; I do not know whether it applies to the hon. Gentleman. We get a lot of these Questions on the Order Paper, and the House gets a lot of information about the administration, including some aspects of day-to-day administration. As is the way here, we have rubbed along and found a good practical modus operandi. We do not entrench too far upon the limits of order and the Ministry does not entrench too far in its claims of invulnerability for a public corporation.
We are seeking to see that the Post Office shall be no different from the Coal Board or the British Steel Corporation in that regard. If anyone asks, "Why spell it out?" it is for the avoidance of doubt. I hope that this deals with those like my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie who think that we have not gone far enough. I rather suspect that my right hon. Friend thinks that we have gone too far—there is a little niggle at the back of my ear lobe which leads me to think that he will not accept the new Clause.
If he does not it can only be because he thinks it goes too far. It would not surprise me if he said that the Government cannot accept it because they cannot tie the hands of the Corporation, they cannot do anything that will prevent it doing its job as a good commercial organisation. If he says that, my question is: how does the British Steel Corporation carry out its job as a good commercial organisation, because it is subject, no more and no less, to the same Parliamentary accountability as is contained in the new Clause? How does the Coal Board operate as a commercial organisation?
Any attempt to resist the new Clause would be an attempt to create a greater freedom from public accountability for this Corporation than for any other corporation. That being so, whilst I hope that my prophecy, not for the first time, turns out to be wrong and that the Minister will accept the new Clause, if he does not do so, I hope that my hon. Friends will press it as hard as they can.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The new Clause has furnished the crucial debate of the whole Bill, and has attracted some notable contributions, particularly from

my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Birch), the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), whom we are glad to see back, and not least the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). The hon. Gentleman, whose expertise on the nationalised industries is unique in this House, told us that he disapproved of autonomous corporations, but in doing so he gave me the feeling one has when reading an article in one of the juicier Sunday papers on the terrible conditions of vice to be found in certain quarters of the world. There seems to be a parallel between the hon. Gentleman's deep and abiding interest in the nationalised industries which cancels his dislike, and the way in which the reporter on the seamy side of Singapore is able to stifle his natural instincts of disgust to bring the good news to those at home.
I am puzzled by the Clause because, if we accept it, I wonder whether all our labours on the Bill in this House, going back for many months, and for years with the Post Office, have any value. Why bother to change the Post Office into a public corporation? What is the advantage, unless we attract to its service the sort of people whom autonomous corporations are now seeking to employ and to whom they are offering great rewards?
The Postmaster-General described himself as being the chief executive of the Post Office for the time being. The time will come when he will become Chief Whip and someone else will have to do the job, and a reasonable solution would be to have somebody who did it on a semi-permanent basis.
I cannot help thinking of the evidence which the hon. Member for Poplar was so active and industrious in getting and which formed the basis of the main report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries last year. In Committee I quoted the evidence of Lord Heyworth, an eminent businessman and Chairman of Unilever Ltd., given before an earlier Select Committee but quoted in paragraph 786 of Cmnd. 371:
If people came to look at everything I did in a year after the events, the shareholders would be horrified because they would see that sonic of my decisions were quite wrong. The more I felt that someone was looking over my shoulder all the time and was going to examine these things at any time later, the less I would be inclined to take a decision, the less


decisive I would become, and pretty well certainly the less good would be the results."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 4th March. 1969; c. 971.]
10.45 p.m.
There has been much talk by the sponsors of the new Clause about public accountability. It was in that spirit that my hon. Friends and I moved during the Committee stage an Amendment suggesting that what was desirable was an efficient audit of the Post Office. I believe that if our Amendment had been accepted, a high degree of public accountability would have been attained, and we should not at this late stage be seeking to reintroduce it by a form of words which, whatever else it is, is certainly unacceptable to the Parliamentary draftsman.
If one wants accountability, I do not think Question and Answer in the House of Commons produces the sort of accountability which is of any real use. It simply discourages from taking executive posts in the organisation the sort of people whom the Postmaster-General is seeking to attract.
The hon. Member for Poplar made the point that acceptance of this Clause would put the Post Office on an exact par with the other nationalised industries and that they would have to furnish as much as or as little information as the other nationalised industries have to furnish. I feel that we get a reasonable amount of information on the other nationalised industries. It was felt that the desire to make the Post Office, a public service, into an autonomous corporation was partly based on the feelings of Lord Heyworth which I have quoted that Members of Parliament were breathing down the back of his neck.
I find myself in the difficult position that I have found the hon. Member for Poplar an admirable chairman. I follow his views closely, and on the whole he is probably right. If the effect of the Clause is simply to put the Post Office on a par with the other nationalised industries, it would be right to support the Clause. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is sensitive—whether in the lobes of his ears, I do not know—to the noises which are made behind him, but I would encourage his hon. Friends to press on with their Amendment. It will certainly get substantial support from

this side of the House. I feel that it might have the result of putting on the Statute Book something which, however good the Minister's intentions, the Parliamentary draftsman would not wear.

Mr. Molloy: The new Clause touches upon a fundamental principle of public ownership as we on this side of the House understand it: that an industry which has been taken into public ownership, or created directly by the State, should at all times be accountable to the House.
My hon. Friends for Barking (Mr. Driberg) and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) have outlined the discussions which went on for many years in the Labour Party. I have always supported the view which they have advanced, which in those days we used to call the Bevan form of public ownership, as opposed to the Morrison form of public ownership. We should take the view of Aneurin Bevan that any form of public ownership should have the maximum accountability to the House of Commons, to the people whom this House represents. I still think that this is a very valid argument.

Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should the House not have the attention of the Postmaster-General on a particularly interesting speech, rather than that he should be planning when to close the debate?

Mr. Molloy: I am grateful for the intervention. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take notice of it because I have something to say in a few moments which is particularly relevant to his conscience.
It is on this issue of public ownership that so many of us feel strongly. We have had divisions of opinion on both sides in Committee. Hon. Members opposite have rushed to our assistance to ensure that there is proper public accountability for the nationalised industries. At the same time, they consider that there should not be too much investigation into the activities of the great monopolies. We on this side of the House have always argued that a great industry in private hands which forms a massive monopoly is anti-democratic. But the same can be said of such a monopoly if it is taken into public ownership and there is no accountability.
As I see it, the consultative councils have been pretty hopeless, and if my right hon. Friend proposes to argue later on that something similar is to be established in respect of the Post Office he need not bother, because what has been done along these lines in other industries has been a complete failure—[Interruption.] Before hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer too loudly, let me remind them that, while they approve of public accountability in the House of Commons, they are not too sure about appointing a number of Ministers to effect public accountability. They even oppose the principle of giving the responsibility to my right hon. Friend or his equivalent when the changeover occurs. They fall into the trap of complaining about the powers of those whom they call faceless civil servants but not being prepared to agree to Ministers being appointed to ensure that a public industry is accounted for properly in this House.
I must support the new Clause unless my right hon. Friend's explanation satisfies me that what is envisaged in it will take place when the Bill is finalised in any event. In reply to a similar debate in Committee, my right hon. Friend said:
There will also be ample opportunity for Members to raise Questions on the Floor of the House, and these will be answered in the same way as that in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, for instance, or the Minister of Transport replies on the Floor of the House. I do not think that hon. Members need have any doubt at all that Members of the House of Commons will find some way if they have serious points to raise on behalf of their constituents, of cross-examining the Ministers responsible. That will continue to be the case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 3rd December, 1968; c. 138.]
I go along with what my right hon. Friend said in that observation, but I am at variance with him when he speaks of hon. Members finding some way of questioning Ministers, because I do not think that is satisfactory. A straightforward method by which Ministers are answerable to the House should be clearly laid down. I am not sure, for example, that I welcome the idea of a Minister of Power. I would prefer to see a Minister responsible for the gas industry, another responsible for the electricity industry, and so on. I believe that this is the real essence of public accountability.
In this context I part company with many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. While they echo our aspira-

tions about the principle of public accountability, many of them in Committee have said that they cannot support the idea of having a number of Ministers to make public accountability effective. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend, when he replies, will be able to go a little further than he did in Committee and say that he will take cognisance of the serious misgivings which have been expressed from this side of the House. I am willing to acknowledge that perhaps some of those misgivings might not have been expressed in such totality if many of my hon. Friends had been aware of the passage to which I have just referred. At the same time, I do not believe that we have ever reached a sensible method of public accountablity in the publicly-owned industries, and we ought not to build into a new industry some of the failings and faults which exist in those industries.
I believe that new Clause 6 will make a great contribution to ensuring that we do not commit some of the errors which we have made in previous forms of public ownership. Here is a first-class opportunity for my right hon. Friend to remove the doubts which many of us have that the public accountability which now exists is insufficient and that future public accountability will take cognisance of those failings by making them good in this legislation for the creation of a new public corporation.

Dr. Winstanley: My hon. Friends and I support the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) on new Clause 6. We are also glad to have the support of the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport)—

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: But not the boredom of the hon. Gentleman's speech.

Dr. Winstanley: The hon. and gallant Gentleman can go out, if he wishes.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: I will. Thank you very much.

Dr. Winstanley: Having been able to exercise such a nice discrimination in the selection of my audience, I will proceed.
Indeed, we also support the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) about the possibility of going further concerning the accountability to this House of the revised Post Office.
In giving this support, I remind the Postmaster-General, if he needs reminding—which I doubt—that we have supported him on the Bill in general. We have taken the view that the Civil Service kind of establishment, in the ordinary sense, is not a proper body to administer things like the national giro and the data processing service or to run the kind of enterprise which modern systems of telecommunications require. We have at every stage expressed anxiety on this point. We believe that a major problem facing politics in this country, which has not been solved by this Government, by their predecessors, or, I acknowledge, by the Liberal Party, is: how do we organise and administer large-scale enterprises so as to preserve some sense of public service, introduce an element of competition and at the same time, retain some element of public accountability?
This is an immense problem. I say, without hesitation, that the nationalised industries have not answered it. Nor, I hasten to add, have the big private undertakings. Therefore, we must think of some new way of constructing and administering these large-scale organisations. I hope that in carrying out what is in a sense an experiment in the reorganisation of the Post Office, we shall think of new ways of doing this, and, in particular, of new ways of introducing this element of accountability.
11.0 p.m.
In reply to my intervention the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) appeared to suggest that the present system was satisfactory. He said that I had not been in the House for very long, but I must tell him that during the time that I have been in the House he has not been here very often. The hon. Gentleman went further and said that one gets good answers to Questions. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I read HANSARD diligently, and I notice that he has asked very few Questions on this or any subject during the last three years. The hon. Gentleman referred to the arrangements made way back in 1942 by Mr. Herbert Morrison, and no doubt they were as he outlined them, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that his knowledge of what goes on now is not as great as mine.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman is learning quite fast. He will eventually

learn that there are much more sophisticated ways of getting information from Ministers than by putting down Questions.

Dr. Winstanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because that leads me to my next point. The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) said that it was not just a question of Parliamentary Questions, that there were other ways of getting information, and indeed that we ought to preserve certain other rights. My experience has been that where it is assumed that Questions on matters of day-to-day management cannot be answered, Ministers will not answer letters on those matters. I have received many letters dealing with matters relating to the British Railways Board in which I have been told that the Minister cannot deal with the issue I have raised because this is a matter of day-to-day management and not a matter of general policy.

Mr. Mikardo: I have never had such a letter.

Dr. Winstanley: The hon. Gentleman says that, but there have been complaints about this from hon. Members on both sides of the House. If there is a convention about the admissibility of Questions on the Floor of the House, this seems to govern the willingness or otherwise of Ministers to answer queries raised in correspondence and by other means. I accept what the hon. Member for Poplar says as a result of his great experience, his great age and length of tenure in this House, and I shall follow his advice, for which I am grateful, but it is my experience that the degree of accountability to this House of various boards, and the British Railways Board in particular, is inadequate. It may be adequate for the hon. Gentleman, but I do not believe that it is adequate for the House. I believe that the present degree of accountability will not be adequate in respect of the Post Office. I hope that the new Clause will do something to ensure that it is not less adequate than it is in respect of the organisation to which I have referred.
I agree that we ought to go even further than it is proposed to go in this Clause. There is a precedent worth following in the arrangements for answering Questions about the National Health


Service. This is one sphere in which we are not inhibited in the kind of Questions that we can ask. I have no reason to believe that this arrangement in any way interferes with the working of the hospitals or the administration of the National Health Service, and I should like to see us following that pattern, which goes further than the proposal of the hon. Member for Putney.
I am surprised to find that my general support for the Clause has been repudiated by some hon. Members on both sides of the House, but it is still there, and I hope that we shall get a favourable reply from the Postmaster-General.

Mr. Will Griffiths: I agree with a great deal of what was said by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley). The hon. Gentleman is clearly interested in the nationalised industries. That being so, I am surprised that he does not know that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) is Chairman of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, and that he has put in an enormous amount of work on that Committee and produced with his colleagues some reports which have been invaluable to hon. Members on both sides of the House, even if he has not been in the Chamber to put down Questions as often as the hon. Member for Cheadle would have desired.

Dr. Winstanley: I acknowledge that. I am aware of the debt that we owe the hon. Member for Poplar in this respect. I have read the Select Committee's Reports and benefited from them. I merely commented on the narrow point of my intervention about the admissibility of Questions and the satisfactoriness or otherwise of getting answers to them. That was all.

Mr. Griffiths: I regret that I have not had the benefit of hearing the whole of the debate, but I heard the tail end of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). I agree very much with what he said. I regret that my hon. Friends who have put down the new Clause have sought to exclude accountability for day-to-day matters.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South whose speech I heard, said that Lord Heyworth found it a disadvantage to

have people looking over his shoulder. When the hon. Member quoted Lord Heyworth, I was reminded at once of the late Herbert Morrison, because when I first entered the House of Commons—with my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and other colleagues, on both sides—that was precisely the argument that Herbert Morrison used to persuade us to divorce the public corporations from day-to-day accountability to the House of Commons.
Herbert Morrison said that the managers of the nationalised industries ought not to be looking over their shoulders at Members of Parliament. I remember very well how he said, "We do not want the managers of the nationalised industries to be Civil Service-minded. We want the thrusting, adventurous people who are imaginative." And so we got General Sir Brian Robertson and a whole galaxy of people from the Army, from the Navy or, sometimes, from private industry.
At that time I was inclined to agree with the advocacy of Herbert Morrison, but after a short experience, after nationalisation of the coal industry—

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Griffiths: —I came to the conclusion that we suffered two acute disadvantages from the system that the Labour Government embarked upon in those days. On the one hand, the nationalised industries were exposed to the misrepresentation of the Press, and sometimes of hon. Members opposite—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) was not here at that time.

Sir G. Nabarro: Yes, I was.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member did not come until later. He has certainly made up for it since, but he was not here at that time. I regret it, because the place would have been livelier had he been here.
At that time, we realised that the newly-nationalised industries suffered from the disadvantage, on the one hand, of misrepresentation, as I, at least, and some of my hon. Friends saw it, by organs of the Press, and equally, as one learned from one's constituents, by certain bureaucratic practices on the part of a quite low level of manager in the


nationalised industries. Therefore, we had twin disadvantages. We could neither expose the lies or misrepresentation about the nationalised industries, nor could we expose the bureaucracy on behalf of our constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar asked why we should treat this piece of public ownership differently from the other public corporations. That is not a very revolutionary sentiment. I should have thought that the experience that my hon. Friend has had, along with me, in the House of Commons would have led him to say that we want to go a little further and that we want, indeed, day-to-day accountability.
Thinking about this over the years that I have been in the House of Commons, trying to deal with constituency trivialities, as we all have to deal with them from time to time, affecting nationalised industry, I have realised that it has caused the utmost irritation to our constituents. I am embarrassed at mentioning this, because of its triviality, but some years ago in Manchester the railway management insisted that access to a certain station forecourt would be allowed only to a certain number of licensed taxi drivers in the city who were also licensed by the Railways Board. When those taxis were not on the rank, as frequently happened, passengers arriving in inclement weather, which is sometimes associated with Manchester, had to walk down an unprotected access to the station to try to hail a taxi several hundred yards away. A letter to the Minister did no good; I agree with the hon. Member for Cheadle about that. When I tried that, I was told by the then Minister of Transport that it was a matter of day-to-day administration and that he would pass my letter on to the Railways Board. Similar situations existed in Leeds and Liverpool. A deputation of Members attended upon the head of British Railways and asked him to end this absurdity. Even then, our request was not acceded to.
I was advised that the Minister had taken responsibility in the original Act for a certain old Railway Act. I discovered, because of the Minister's researches and the advice he gave me, that it was possible to table a Question. Though the Table and the Minister had originally said that it was not possible, in the end I tabled a Question. It may

have been coincidence and nothing to do with my advocacy or that of hon. Members on both sides who had gone to see General Sir Brian Robertson, but this situation was ended almost immediately. It should have been swept away in a gale of laughter long before that.
What opportunities do hon. Members have, therefore, to deal with what may appear to be trivia but are, in fact, matters of immense importance to constituents? As a Socialist I say that they are of immense importance when considering the relevance of public ownership. That is the political lesson. It is important that people should be made aware of the shortcomings of the system under which hon. Members can raise these matters.
In the early days, we had to try to intervene for a few minutes on the one day of the year when the House wanted to deal with the grand sweep of the whole industry. How absurd it was that we had to deal with trivia on the one day which was set aside for an analysis of the coal industry, for example. Yet that used to be the only opportunity hon. Members had to ventilate these grievances in the House. The system which operates has been a great disadvantage. The sooner the House puts an end to it, the better it will be for the management of the existing nationalised industries and the better we shall be able to represent our constituents.

Mr. Driberg: I am deeply moved by my hon. Friend's speech. I agree with it. As I said earlier, I would rather leave out the last few words of the Clause, but we are dealing with this horrible thing called practical politics. When one is dealing with a Front Bench of good comrades who are also pragmatists, one must try to table something which they are able to accept.

Mr. Griffiths: I well understand how my hon. Friend feels, because he and I have shared these feelings for many years.
11.15 p.m.
Over the years, many people have said, as Herbert Morrison did, that one could not have the nationalised industries exposed to this kind of day-to-day examination. There have been references already to the National Health Service, spending over £1,000 million a year of public money and employing an enormous


labour force. Aneurin Bevan insisted—and, presumably, secured Cabinet consent—that it be accountable in every detail to the House of Commons. The National Health Service, what is more, was introduced in an atmosphere of high controversy. The Tories voted against it on Second Reading and Third Reading.
After the Act became operative in 1948, hon. Members opposite put down an enormous number of Questions dealing with trivial matters in the National Health Service, and people said, "Look what happens when Ministers are exposed to this kind of treatment in the House", but, although the motive may have been political, it could properly be argued that hon. Members opposite were also looking after the interests of their constituents. So they were serving two purposes; they were acting as Members of Parliament in the clash of opinion with the party with which they disagreeed, and, co-incidentally, they were also dealing with their constituents' affairs.
After a relatively short time, Questions addressed to the Minister of Health became more serious, and today, although one can still put down a Question for Oral Answer about a trivial detail of the National Health Service, hon. Members do not, in the main, abuse the Order Paper.
I put it to the House, and to my right hon. Friend, who had a radical past, that it would be good for Parliament and good for our democratic processes if the Executive and the people whom the Executive appoints to the management of nationalised industries were exposed to more critical examination on matters of detailed administration which affects the people of this country.

Sir D. Glover: The Postmaster-General must be feeling very lonely, sitting there under a storm of shot and shell from both sides of the House. In the last hour and a half he has heard from no one who did not ask him to accept the new Clause.
I speak on this matter as a convert. I admit that at the time when Herbert Morrison was guiding the House—I was not here—while the first batch of nationalisation Measures were going through in the 1945–50 Parliament, I was a great believer in divorcing the nationalised industries from Parlia-

mentary control. But gradually—the one sinner who repenteth is worth more than the ninety and nine—I have become more and more convinced that it is essential for the proper running of these national monopolies, if they are to remain in public ownership, to maintain some day-to-day supervision of their activities on the Floor of the House.
They are by their nature monopolies. The public have no redress elsewhere. People cannot buy electricity or postage stamps somewhere else, so, if there is inefficient service, the only redress open to them is by complaint to their Member of Parliament and through the Member making representations either by Oral Question or by letter to the Minister concerned.

Mr. Ridley: No one has yet pointed out the futility of asking a Question which receives a stone-walling Answer and takes one's constituent no further. Could we not take it further and try a more effective way than Questions of dealing with our constituents' complaints?

Sir D. Glover: I agree. I do not suggest that the present system is ideal. We understand that those who want publicity put down a Question; those who want to solve a constituent's problem write to the Minister about it. Once the Minister has said, "No," in public, one has "had it". But we have that right in many cases, although not in others.
The concept of consultative councils has been a disaster. The sooner they are wound up and the small amount they cost saved, the better. In all the years since nationalisation, I doubt whether they have ever solved one problem. On rail closures, they are only brought in like members of the public at the public inquiries, and not consulted beforehand. So Herbert Morrison's concept that they would protect the public has been proved wrong.
I should like the new Clause to go much further. I do not withdraw my objections to the system, but we must have real accountability to Parliament from all these nationalised industries. The new Clause is the best thing that we could get—I understand why it has been framed as it has—in this very bad Bill. Some hon. Members have not understood the limitations. Under the new Clause, some of the points of the hon. Member


for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths) will still be outwith the Minister's orbit. The crossed nibs in post offices mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) will still not be among the subjects about which we may question the Minister. What we shall be able to do is ask him why he is opening a new factory to produce the crossed nibs. It is a strange thing that in all my working life I have never been able to write with a Post Office pen: they all have crossed nibs—

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member will find that many post offices today have ball point pens, so there are no longer crossed nibs.

Sir D. Glover: It just shows what happens when one gets conditioned to crossed nibs. I automatically pull out my ball point pen when I go into a post office and do not look for what it supplies.

Mr. Ridley: If my hon. Friend has so much belief in this remedy of asking Parliamentary Questions and thus putting everything right, why has he not asked Questions, as he has been able to do up to now, about crossed nibs?

Sir D. Glover: I am a great believer in free enterprise and I thought that there must be a great free enterprise factory churning out these crossed nibs on a Post Office contract, and I did not want to inhibit its work.
Because of the width of Ministerial responsibility in matters affecting the Post Office, the National Health Service, and so on, one can write to the Minister instead of tabling a Question. I have often been astonished to learn, when I have written to the Postmaster-General about a matter which the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange would call trivial, the reason why a letter has been delayed. The Post Office must have an enormous and expensive policing mechanism for ascertaining this information. The information one gets is history—why a letter has missed a certain post and so on—and it does not guarantee that a letter posted today will reach its destination tomorrow.
How much does it cost to run this policing service? Did the Minister take the cost into account in deciding to

establish the Corporation, and will this service continue, despite the cost? Even if the cost is high, this type of accountability is necessary in the public interest, particularly if we are to have national monopolies of this kind, private and public, remembering that in the private sector we have the Monopolies Commission.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Has not my hon. Friend noticed that the battle has been won? It is obvious, from the goings on opposite, that the Government fear that they may be defeated on this issue. I predict that the Postmaster-General has arranged a form of words which will satisfy his hon. Friends. I look forward to seeing how the Government overcome what until a few moments ago might have been an impossible situation for them.

Sir D. Glover: I am encouraged by my hon. Friend's intervention. In recent months back benchers have shown the valuable job that they do in that the Executive can no longer feel confident of getting a Measure through without listening to the voice of hon. Members. There has been a collective voice on this issue. [Interruption.] I appreciate that hon Members want to hear the Postmaster-General's answer to our case—[Interruption]—and at present there is so much noise that I almost cannot hear myself speak.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that we have been talking about the possible activities of the Government Whip? We were trying to ascertain sotto voce whether he intends to move the Closure on my hon. Friend.

11.30 p.m.

Sir D. Glover: As a result of my hon. Friend's intervention, even more noise is going on, and I cannot hear myself think.

Sir G. Nabarro: More voce than sotto.

Sir D. Glover: I must reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), who said that as a result of our arguments the Government now perhaps had a form of words which would satisfy their supporters. We should be grateful if we could hear them. We have been debating this matter for about two hours. If the Minister had said an hour ago,


"I am entirely convinced by the arguments we have heard and we will accept the new Clause", or even if he had said, "We are convinced that public accountability is essential", we should not be debating this matter at half-past 11. The House would have felt that it had done a good job and we could have gone home full of the virtue of feeling that the great British public had been protected as a result of our efforts. But now we shall go home not knowing what was in the great brain of the Postmaster-

General and whether we have convinced him that he should give way to the democratic wishes of hon. Members. Now, hag ridden, he has given no indication of what was in his mind.

Motion made and Question put forth-with, pursuant to the Standing Order (Sittings of the House (Suspended Sittings)), That the Proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended.—[Mr. Fitch.]

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 171.

Division No. 178.]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Fowler, Gerry
Mapp, Charles


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth


Alldritt, Walter
Galpern, Sir Myer
Marquand, David


Anderson, Donald
Gardner, Tony
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Ashley, Jack
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mayhew, Christopher


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Gregory, Arnold
Mendelson, John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mikardo, Ian


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Millan, Bruce


Barnett, Joel
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bence, Cyril
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamling, William
Molloy, William


Bishop, E. S.
Harper, Joseph
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Blackburn, F.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Haseldine, Norman
Moyle, Roland


Booth, Albert
Hazell, Bert
Murray, Albert


Boston, Terence
Henig, Stanley
Newens, Stan


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Herbison, Rt. Hn, Margaret
Oakes, Gordon


Boyden, James
Hobden, Dennis
Ogden, Eric


Bradley, Tom
Hooley, Frank
O'Malley, Brian


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Horner, John
Oram, Albert E.


Brooks, Edwin
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orbach, Maurice


Brown, Hugh D, (G'gow, Provan)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Huckfield, Leslie
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hynd, John
Pentland, Norman


Coe, Denis
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Janner, Sir Barnett
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Crawshaw, Richard
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rees, Merlyn


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Richard, Ivor


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Oaves, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Roberts, Gwylym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Delargy, Hugh
Lawson, George
Robertson. John (Paisley)


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dewar, Donald
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lee, John (Reading)
Rose, Paul


Dickens, James
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rowlands, E.


Dobson, Ray
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert


Driberg, Tom
Luard, Evan
Short. Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dunn, James A.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McCann, John
Silverman, Julius


Dun woody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
MacColl, James
Skeffington, Arthur


Eadle, Alex
MacDermot, Niall
Slater, Joseph


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Macdonald, A. H.
Small, William


Ellis, John
McGuire, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ennals, David
Mackie, John
Taverne, Dick


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Maclennan, Robert
Thornton, Ernest


Finch, Harold
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tinn, James


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Tomney, Frank


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Forrester, John
Manuel, Archie
Wallace, George




Watkins, David (Consett)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Woof, Robert


Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Williams, Alan Leo (Hornchurch)



Wellbeloved, James
Willis, Rt. Hn. George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


White, Mrs. Eirene
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. Neil MacBride and


Wilkins, W. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Mr. Alan Fitch.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Goodhew, victor
Onslow, Cranley


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gower, Raymond
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Astor, John
Grant, Anthony
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Pardoe, John


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Grieve, Percy
Peel, John


Balniel, Lord
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Percival, Ian


Batsford, Brian
Gurden, Harold
Peyton, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pink, R. Bonner


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Biffen, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pym, Francis


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hawkins, Paul
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Black, Sir Cyril
Hay, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Blaker, Peter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Boardm-m, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Higgins, Terence L.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Body, nichard
Hiley, Joseph
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hill, J. E. B.
Royle, Anthony


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hornby, Richard
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Howell, David (Guildford)
Scott, Nicholas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sharples, Richard


Bryan, Paul
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Silvester, Frederick


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sinclair, Sir George


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Burden, F. A.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Speed, Keith


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Stodart, Anthony


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kitson, Timothy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Carlisle, Mark
Lambton, Viscount
Summers, Sir Spencer


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Tapsell, Peter


Clark, Henry
Lane, David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Clegs, Walter
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Temple, John M.


Costain, A. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Tilney, John


Crouch, David
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Crowder, F. P.
Longden, Gilbert
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Currie, G. B. H.
Lubbock, Eric
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Dance, James
MacArthur, Ian
Vickers, Dame Joan


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Wainwright Richard (Colne Valley)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McNair-Wilson, M. (Walthamstow, E.)
Wall, Patrick


Dean, Paul
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Walters, Dennis


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maddan, Martin
Ward, Dame Irene


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Marten, Neil
Weatherill, Bernard


Drayson, G. B.
Maude, Angus
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Eden, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Wiggin, A. W.


Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'le-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Emery, Peter
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Miscampbell, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Eyre, Reginald
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Farr, John
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Worsley, Marcus


Fortescue, Tim
Murton, Oscar
Wright, Esmond


Foster, Sir John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wylie, N. R.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Neave, Airey
Younger, Hn. George


Gilmour, Sr John (Fife, E.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glover, Sir Douglas
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Jasper More and


Goodhart, Phillip
Nott, John
Mr. Hector Monro.

QUESTIONS TO THE MINISTER

Notwithstanding the effect of any provision of this Act giving the Post Office the status of a public corporation, the Minister shall answer questions addressed to him on all matters concerning the Post Office other than those of day to day administration.—[Mr. Hugh Jenkins.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I believe that this is a Clause which will commend itself to hon. Members on both sides of the House. If I am right in that supposition and there is a body of support which I confidently expect for this, it will be my duty to press the Clause to a Division. I trust that that course will not be necessary, because I rather hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to accept it. There is every reason to suppose that he will look upon it favourably, because it does something which he has, from time to time during the proceedings on the Bill, made fairly clear would be quite close to his heart.
9.30 p.m.
The problem about the creation of a Corporation is that it removes to some degree the element of public accountability. I make no bones about saying that I am no great lover of the public corporation. In parenthesis, I welcome the disappearance of London Transport which is shortly to come under the control of the Greater London Council.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, even in parenthesis, will speak to his Amendment.

Mr. Jenkins: I was illustrating the point that this is a good Clause because it will retain the element of public control, which the public corporation does not. I was quoting the example of London Transport which will come under the elected body of the G.L.C. just as the new Clause enables my right hon. Friend still to answer Questions in the House.
On Second reading I said that I was not greatly enamoured of moving the Post Office away from the direct control of the Minister. From time to time in the long drawn out Committee proceedings hon. Members on both sides of


the Committee made remarks which suggested clearly that they agreed largely with what I was saying, although those remarks were sometimes incidental. For example, the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) said this:
Amendment 1 seeks to preserve the office of Postmaster-General, which must be to his advantage.
I hardly think that the hon. Gentleman would seek to preserve the office unless he were also seeking to preserve the functions of the office, and one function of the office is answering Questions on what the Post Office is doing. He said later:
I do not believe that it is acceptable if this is independent of the Minister.
He was making it fairly clear that he viewed with some anxiety the separation of the Corporation from the effective control of this House.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) said this:
We begin on this side of the House by saying that we would like the post, and indeed the title of the Postmaster-General retained. It is a great and a very historic post."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 26th November, 1968; c. 4–44.]
I can hardly believe that the hon. Member for Acton was saying that he merely wanted the title to be retained, that he wished to strip the Postmaster-General of all his power but to leave him with his title. I therefore take it that the hon. Member for Acton shares my doubts that, in creating a separate Corporation, we are removing it from the effective control of this House, and removing the element of public accountability which has been an essential feature of the operation of the Post Office for so many years and which, compared with post offices which I have seen in other countries, for example, in the United States, has been a beneficent feature. It has been a feature which has enabled us to keep a close check on the efficiency of the Post Office.
In parenthesis, that efficiency has today broken down. I have not received a parcel which I was expecting to receive, but I hope that this is not indicative of general inefficiency—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's parenthesis seems to be out

of order. He will address himself to his new Clause.

Mr. Jenkins: I put the other bracket on the parenthesis a moment ago. That has closed it. I should like to pray in aid my right hon. Friend himself who said in Committee:
The suggestion in this series of Amendments"—
he is referring to a series of Amendments which was put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite—
is that postal services should remain a Government Department, because it is said to be such a separate business from the telecommunications, and should be run separately by a Minister.
What my right hon. Friend said is true. Hon. Gentlemen opposite ran away from the consequences of the whole proposition when they came face to face with it, having themselves advocated the Corporation which the Bill seeks to set up. I understand that when the present Government came into office in 1964, they found the whole idea of the creation of a public corporation to be fairly well advanced and took over proposals which had emanated from the previous Government. I believe that I am correct in that statement.
Certainly there has been no lack of inducement among hon. Members opposite for the general principle of the Bill. The general principle was supported by them on Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will debate the general principle of the Bill again when we come to Third Reading. The hon. Gentleman is moving an Amendment. He must keep to it.

Mr. Jenkins: I hope that I shall not stray again. I shall do my best not to do so. I was about to say that ever since they accepted the broad ideas set out in the Bill in the proceedings in Committee, hon. Gentlemen, realising what the consequences of that would be, have been endeavouring to run away from them in Amendment after Amendment. The general effect has been to try to recreate the missing element of public accountability which has been removed by the creation of the Bill itself.
The whole history of the Committee month after month, week after week, day after day, has been to try to find some


means of recreating the element of public accountability between this House and the Post Office. The new Clause provides that step. It does what hon. Gentlemen opposite have been trying to do throughout the Committee stage. It provides that the Minister shall answer Questions addressed to him on all matters concerning the Post Office other than those of day-to-day administration. It is the half-way house which hon. Gentlemen have been seeking.
It removes from the Minister the necessity of saying what happened to Mr. So-and-So's past today, although on occasion it has been a good thing that he has been able to do that and some of us will be sorry to see that function go. But we must reconcile ourselves at this stage of the Bill to that loss. I am sure that when hon. Gentlemen opposite consider the consequences of this provision they will want to support it, and I hope that it will have the support of my hon. Friends.
To illustrate the point—I shall not take a great deal more time since I have established the general necessity for the new Clause—the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) said
The Postmaster-General has not discharged the burden of proof to show why he wants to set up this Corporation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 28th November, 1968; c. 63–73.]
He may have been right if he was referring to the matters which appear in this Amendment.
It is true that no adequate alternative means of public accountability has been suggested. There have been other suggestions, of course. Instead of what is proposed in the Amendment, such methods of accountability as councils of consultation, other local organisations and means of communication at various levels might be established. But nothing can replace the accountability which is found in this House by putting Questions to the Minister. That is the form of accountability that the Clause seeks to perpetuate. Time and time again it has been proved that there is no alternative for it. We have consumer councils, but I am sure that no one would say that they have replaced the system of putting Questions to the Minister. If one of our constituents finds himself in difficulty with a Government Department, he does not

approach the consumer council. He comes to his Member of Parliament, who asks a Question of the Minister concerned.
Unless the Clause is carried, this procedure will no longer be open to us. Not only will Questions on day-to-day administration be excluded, but all others except those concerned with major financial policy. Anything lower than that level cannot be touched. The Clause seeks to bring into being a half-way house of administration and policy which otherwise is excluded from the examination of this House.
I will not weary the House with further examples. I could go through the proceedings in Committee and show that on practically every Clause hon. Members attempted to recreate the possibility of interrogating the Minister. This Clause seeks to re-establish it. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not make it necessary for us to go into the Division Lobby but will say that this is a method for which he has been searching and which he has decided to accept.

Mr. Nigel Birch: I agreed with a great many of the points made by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). I am sure that we all agree that the consultative councils set up under previous nationalisation Acts have proved to be nugatory. No one has ever got anything out of them. They are a pure waste of time.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that he wants to establish a halfway house. I have never been very keen on halfway houses. Surely the point is that it is precisely on matters concerned with details of administration that Members of Parliament can produce their maximum effect.
Supposing the hon. Gentleman strayed from his constituency, went into a post office in Penge and found that the nibs were crossed. If he wrote a letter to the Postmaster-General or asked a Question about it, he could be fairly certain that next time he went to Penge the nibs in the post office would not be crossed.
If the Bill is passed as it now stands, in similar circumstances the hon. Gentleman would be told by the Postmaster-General that this was a matter of day-to-day administration. If the hon. Gentleman then wrote to the head boy set


up under the Bill, whatever he calls himself, he might get an answer, but he would be more likely to be told that it was a matter for the North, South, East, or West manager's department. Sooner or later a letter will come back from the North, South, East or West manager's Department, very likely in perfectly courteous terms, saying, "I am sorry that the nibs in the post office in Penge were crossed, but they will stay crossed."

Mr. Driberg: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. But if the new Clause is passed and if its operation in the House is the same as in other cases, one can at least put down a question to the Minister asking him to issue a general direction to post offices that nibs should not be crossed.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Birch: That would be a powerful action, but if a general direction were issued that there should not be crossed nibs, I doubt whether it would penetrate as far as Penge. It is precisely in these detailed matters that we can do something. The principle of taking detailed administration away from the Floor of the House was the conception which the late Herbert Morrison had when he set up the nationalised industries. I do not think that it has worked very satisfactorily. The idea was that it would be too terrible if these great men were worried about details.
The Post Office is not so much a business as a service. I have been a service Minister in a service Ministry where thousands of people come under one's control. There were endless individual cases of letters and questions, but I was not utterly crushed by them.
We should think about what we are trying to do. I feel that this is a retro grade step. We have made mistakes previously in the nationalised industries. It was a mistake to take any kind of control away from this House. When I first came to the House we could ask why the 3.30 from Manchester was ten hours late, and we got some interesting answers.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that unless we carry the Clause not only shall we not be able to ask questions of detail, but we shall be unable to ask questions at all. The

right hon. Gentleman is questioning the wisdom of the Bill, and I agree about that.

Mr. Birch: That is what I am questioning. I have always thought that the Bill was a lot of damn nonsense.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not be tempted to go out of order.

Mr. Birch: Under your guidance, Mr. Speaker, I trust that I shall be able to resist the temptation. I will not pursue that further.
We must record the fact that if the House loses all control our constituents will not be pleased. If they get bad service in the post office and their Member cannot ask about it and get a proper letter about it, they will be very cross, and quite right, too. I hope that the House will rise in its wrath and at any rate pass the Amendment, although I do not think that it goes far enough. If the Labour Party forces this Bill through it will be called the "crossed nib party" It means that it will have given way to the will of the Iron Mellish. I hope that hon. Members will not start doing this at this stage. If we pass the new Clause we will have struck some blow for good administration.

Mr. Driberg: The right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) has raised some interesting historical parallels. I agreed when he mentioned the time when we were able to ask Questions why the 3.30 was ten minutes late arriving at St. Pancras—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: In the old days when they were ten hours late under private enterprise.

Mr. Driberg: If hon. Members wish to interrupt I will give way to some of them.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I was trying to be helpful to my hon. Friend and to the House by saying that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned ten hours late, referring to the time when transport was in the hands of private enterprise. I think that my hon. Friend misunderstood that.

Mr. Driberg: I am sorry my hon. Friend has not quite grasped the point I was trying to make, but I am grateful to


him for trying to help me. I was referring to wartime when it was called, I think, the Ministry of War Transport, and the right lion. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) was one of the Ministers concerned, and one could ask him for detailed answers about the arrival of trains and that sort of thing.
The important point that has to be made here is that when the argument cropped up after the war about whether detailed questioning was inhibiting to the Departments concerned, whether it led to a lot of delay and bureaucratic nonsense, the Minister was always most emphatic that it did not, that on the contrary it kept the Department and the service concerned on their toes. I believe in this very strongly.
After the war—I hope Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to indulge in these reminiscences—

Mr. Speaker: I have not intervened yet.

Mr. Driberg: No, but I saw you tapping in that ominous way. The experience of this House after the war is strictly relevant to the Clause, because when the post-war Labour Government started to nationalise various industries, as they thought to take them effectively into public ownership, and so on, there was considerable dispute within the governing body about the extent of accountability, and Herbert Morrison, to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, was on the whole in favour of not too much accountability, because he said that it would lead to those industries which were supposed to be expanding, virile, and dynamic industries—they used the same adjectives then as they do now—being too Civil Service minded, always looking over their shoulders in case a Question was coming up in the House, and so on.
The opposite view was taken by Aneurin Bevan, the greatest man, in my view, whom this party has produced in the last few decades, if not longer, who was in favour of total accountability, including accountability for details, and when he was appointed Minister of Health and had the fairly complicated job of setting up the National Health Service he insisted in the Cabinet on having total accountability in this House. He could be questioned on why only two bed sheets,

or blankets, were provided in a particular hospital on a particular night, and so on. It never inhibited at all his administrative duties and responsibilities.
I think that the maximum accountability is desirable. In this Amendment, giving way to more moderate opinion, I agreed to the final words,
other than those of day to day administration".
I should have liked day-to-day administration raised at Question Time also, but, even so, I think that some hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, and some of my hon. Friends on this side, will agree that the Clause represents a considerable improvement on the situation which would exist if it were not carried. I think that it would be a tremendous mistake to remove this whole vast enterprise from Parliamentary scrutiny at Question Time, and that is what the Clause is entirely concerned with.
The trouble about some of the nationalised industries—not all of them—so far is that they have been run largely by people who do not believe in public ownership, and they have been run without fuller workers' participation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is a little wide at the moment.

Mr. Driberg: I just managed to get out the word "participation". In this case the Clause does not deal with that matter, as you, Mr. Speaker, have so kindly reminded me, but it deals with the question of accountability to this House. Failing full workers' participation in the running of an industry, which is another democratic safeguard, accountability to the Minister in this House seems to me to be of vital importance when we are considering the public ownership of any industry or service. I very much hope, therefore, that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support this new Clause, although I hope most of all that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General will feel able to accept it, because unless he does so there will be a very difficult situation for this House and this party.

Captain Orr: I have enormous sympathy with the point of view put forward by those who have been advocating this particular new Clause. I have been alarmed once or twice by the number


of times I have found myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). Like myself, he does not like this Bill. I said on Second Reading that I thought it was a bad Bill, and he clearly agrees with me. I was surprised, however, that during the course of the Committee proceedings he failed to support one or two of the Amendments which I moved which would have restored Parliamentary accountability in many cases; and particularly when I sought to remove the monopoly powers from the new Corporation and keep them in the hands of the Minister as the trustee for Parliament, the hon. Member for Putney, while he spoke sympathetically, did not actually support me when it came to a Division.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I did not speak sympathetically on the occasion when the hon. Gentleman was trying to hive off the profitable section from the Post Office and leave it with the unprofitable section.

Captain Orr: I think the hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding the point I am making. I remember that when I was talking about monopoly powers he made a very eloquent speech about the film industry, which he knows something about. He then spoke sympathetically on the case I was making but failed to support me in the Lobby. I—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Back to the Post Office and accountability of the Minister by Questions.

Captain Orr: I had got the word "I" and intended to follow it by "am". I am saying that on this particular Clause I am inclined to support the hon. Member and would be inclined to go into a Division with him—not that I think this is much of a Clause but it is a little better

than nothing. The hon. Gentleman defended it, as did the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), on the ground that while it would not allow the Minister to be questioned about day-to-day administration, it would allow the Minister to be questioned about what I believe he called the "grey areas". In other words, instead of the stereotyped Questions that one can put down—and perhaps some of the sponsors of the Amendment might tell me if I am wrong in the interpretation—the kind of Question which is probably the only one one can put down to any Minister, asking him to use his powers of giving a general direction, one could now put down Questions about such things as, for example, the misuse by the Corporation of its licensing powers.

If, for instance, the Corporation sought, wrongly, to extend its monopoly by refusing, say, the kind of licences that are already given to private mobile radio stations and one thought that the Corporation was misusing its power in order to extend its monopoly into a field in which it should not, under this provision one could presumably ask the Minister of the day a Question about it.

Mr. Driberg: One cannot at this stage anticipate the advice to be given by the Table Office.

Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman must have made some kind of guess on this, otherwise his Amendment is totally meaningless.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Post Office Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Stonehouse.]

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 176.

Division No. 177.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Blackburn, F.
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Buchan, Norman


Alldritt, Walter
Booth, Albert
Cant, R. B.


Anderson, Donald
Boston, Terence
Carmichael, Neil


Ashley, Jack
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Boyden, James
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bradley, Tom
Chapman, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Coleman, Donald


Barnett, Joel
Brooks, Edwin
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bence Cyrll
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bidwell, Sydney
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, provan)
Dalyell, Tam


Bishop, E. S.
Brown, Bob (N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)




Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Paget, R. T.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dempsey, James
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dewar, Donald
Judd, Frank
Pentland, Norman


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kelley, Richard
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Doig, Peter
Lawson, George
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Driberg, Tom
Leadbitter, Ted
Prico, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dunn, James A.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Probert, Arthur


Eadie, Alex
Lee, John (Reading)
Rankin, John


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rees, Merlyn


Ellis, John
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Richard, Ivor


English, Michael
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Ennals, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Ensor, David
Lomas, Kenneth
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Luard, Evan
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Finch, Harold
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McBride, Neil
Rose, Paul


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCann, John
Rowlands, E.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacColl, James
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacDermot, Niall
Sheldon, Robert


Ford, Ben
Macdonald, A. H.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c' tle-u-Tyne)


Fowler, Gerry
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Freeson, Reginald
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackintosh, John P.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Gardner, Tony
Maclennan, Robert
Silverman, Julius


Ginsburg, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Skeffiington, Arthur


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Slater, Joseph


Gregory, Arnold
MacPharson, Malcolm
Small, William


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Hamitton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taverne, Dick


Hamling, William
Manuel, Archie
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Hannan, William
Mapp, Charles
Thornton, Ernest


Harper, Joseph
Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marquand, David
Tomney, Frank


Haseldine, Norman
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Urwin, T. W.


Hattersley, Roy
Mayhew, Christopher
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Hazell, Bert
Mendelson, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Henig, Stanley
Mikardo, Ian
Wallace, George


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hobden, Dennis
Molloy, William
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hooley, Frank
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wellbeloved, James


Horner, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moyle, Roland
Wilkins, W. A.


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Murray, Albert
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Neal, Harold
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Huckfield, Leslie
Newens, Stan
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phillip (Derby, S.)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oakes, Gordon
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hynd, John
O'Malley, Brian
Woof, Robert


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Oram, Albert E.



Janner, Sir Barnett
Orbach, Maurice
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Charles Morris and


Jeger, George (Goole)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Dr. M. S. Miller.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Body, Richard
Currie, G. B. H.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Dance, James


Astor, John
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Awdry, Daniel
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dean, Paul


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Bryan, Paul
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Balniel, Lord
Buck, Anthony (Colchester)
Drayson, G. B.


Batsford, Brian
Bullus, Sir Eric
Eden, Sir John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Burden, F. A.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Bell, Ronald
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Emery, Peter


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Erringron, Sir Eric


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Carlisle, Mark
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred


Biffen, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Eyre, Reginald


Biggs-Davison, John
Clark, Henry
Farr, John


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Clegg, Walter
Fortescue, Tim


Black, Sir Cyril
Costain, A. P.
Foster, sir John


Blaker, Peter
Crouch, David
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, 8. W.)
Crowder, F. P.
Glover, Sir Douglas







Goodhart, Philip
McMaster, Stanley
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, M. (Walthamstow, E.)
Royle, Anthony


Gower, Raymond
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Grant, Anthony
Maddan, Martin
Scott, Nicholas


Gresham Cooke, R.
Marten, Neil
Scott-Hopkins, James


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maude, Angus
Sharples, Richard


Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray
Silvester, Frederick


Hall, John (W ycombe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sinclair, Sir George


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miscampbell, Norman
Speed, Keith


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Monro, Hector
Stainton, Keith


Hawkins, Paul
More, Jasper
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hay, John
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Tapsell, Peter


Higgins, Terence L.
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hiley, Joseph
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Temple, John M.


Hill, J. E. B.
Neave, Airey
Tilney, John


Hornby, Richard
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Howell, David (Guildford)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nott, John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Iremonger, T. L.
Onslow, Cranley
Vickers, Dame Joan


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wall, Patrick


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walters, Dennis


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pardoe, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wiggin, A. W.


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Peel, John
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Kershaw, Anthony
Percival, Ian
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kitson, Timothy
Peyton, John
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Lambton, Viscount
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pink, R. Bonner
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Lane, David
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Worsley, Marcus


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wright, Esmond


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pym, Francis
Wylie, N. R.


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Younger, Hn. George


Longden, Gilbert
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas



Lubbock, Eric
Ridsdale, Julian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacArthur, Ian
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Question again proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Captain Orr: As I was saying when I was interrupted, I want to find out exactly what value the new Clause has. We are forbidden by it to ask Questions of the new Minister about day-to-day administration. What kind of Questions will we be able to put down that would not be possible without it?

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I think that I can help. At the moment, one can ask Questions only on general matters about which the Minister can give a directive to the Post Office. For example, one can ask the Minister to give a general directive that the Post Office shall introduce a 4d. or a 6d. post. But the whole range of what someone referred to as the "grey areas", between that general directive, which relates to matters of high policy only, and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is intervening; interventions must be brief.

Mr. Jenkins: The whole area between those two, the very great and the very small, is the area of Questions which the Amendment will allow.

Captain Orr: I make no comments about the length of the intervention. I am trying to get at what the new Clause will do. I still do not understand what Questions which would not be the subject of general directions would not also be the subject of day-to-day administration. I hope that it would do what the hon. Member says, but I have grave doubts. I want to be able to ask the new Minister a variety of Questions.
For example, supposing that the Corporation were going to use the powers of manufacture which the Minister said were reserve powers to be used only in certain special circumstances. If, for example, one found that the Post Office was building a new factory in my constituency with the idea of manufacturing relay coils, would I, under the Clause, be entitled to ask the Minister Questions about it?

10.15 p.m.

LABORATORY TECHNICIANS (HEALTH HAZARDS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: The laboratories with which I am concerned tonight are National Health Service hospital laboratories, Public Health

Laboratory Service laboratories and teaching and university hospital laboratories.
The frequently inadequate conditions under which staff in such laboratories are expected to work were spotlighted by the Sunday Times on 6th April. The article said that in a pathology department of a provincial hospital:
A patients' six ft. square waiting room doubles as a staff locker room.


Staff rooms for the 28 technicians, five secretaries, two cleaners and a porter are non-existent.
In the bacteriology room, where the danger from the bacteria is acute, food and clothes lockers clutter up the already limited space.
Although it was a cool spring day the poorly ventilated room was uncomfortably close.
Off the corridor is a toilet used by male and female patients and staff.
This debate is particularly concerned with the danger of laboratory staff contracting turberculosis. Statistical proof that such a hazard exists was provided by the Reid Report in 1957. The survey showed that, during the period 1949–53, the incidence of observed frequency of pulmonary tuberculosis among laboratory technicians was higher than the national average, being 3·4 times higher for males, 1.7 times higher for females and 2·7 times higher for both together. The Reid Report did not advance any reason for the apparent discrepancy between male and female incidence, and probably the rate for females was falsely low.
An examination of the figures for the age group 15 to 24 shows that, although a higher incidence is expected among females than among males, in fact the reverse was observed. The observed rates are 4·6 times higher for males and 1·9 times higher for females. The most noticeable drop occurs in the female junior technicians. What the Reid Report seems to have overlooked was the very rapid turnover of females in laboratories at that time, and that by far the greatest turnover occurred in the second, third and fourth years of employment, a fact commented on in the 1954 Annual Report of the Ministry of Health. These are the very years when incidence is highest and young persons are at greatest risk. There is no way of knowing how many females contracted tuberculosis during their stay of two to four years in laboratories which was not diagnosed until after leaving the service. It is, of course, relevant to note that the turnover has declined since 1957.
It was the misgivings about the situation as it now stands that led my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) to ask the Secretary of State for Social Services on 21st April what was the proportion of cases of tuberculosis diagnosed in the past ten years on staff working in hospital laboratories. The Minister replied that the in-

formation was not available. Even if this information is not available to the Minister, there are a number of pointers which tend to indicate that the incidence has probably increased in recent years and that this increase is not entirely due to the increase in staffing which has taken place.
Evidence for this opinion is varied and includes a survey by the Association of Scientific Workers in 1959, which demonstrated that of over 100 laboratories, 25 per cent. reported having had cases of tuberculosis infection. A report in The Lancet in 1963 said that one hospital in the North of England had had six cases in ten years; there were two cases reported in Blackpool within the space of three years, both since 1960; two were recently reported at Preston; two similar cases at Chesterfield; four in one Glasgow laboratory of which three occurred after 1960; and there were further cases at Wolverhampton, Ormskirk, Belfast, Manchester, all since 1960.
Most laboratory infections are probably not due to accidents such as breakages but are usually caused by inhalation of organisms present in the air. These organisms are present in aerosols, the microscopic particles of fluid liberated into the atmosphere when certain common laboratory experiments are carried out. Because of their minute size, they remain in the atmosphere subjected to air currents, and unless there is adequate ventilation and extraction, they will persist for some time, always being a danger to staff. The accidental breaking of a culture tube can be seen and precautions taken immediately, if necessary evacuating the laboratory. Aerosols cannot be seen, and for this reason are far more dangerous.
Another hazard arises from those specimens received in laboratories for which the diagnosis being considered is in no way tuberculosis. Examples are routine urines subsequently found to be from cases of renal tuberculosis, sputa for malignant cells found to be from cases of pulmonary tuberculosis, faeces for dysentary organisms from cases of tuberculosis, enteritis and so forth.
Following the publication of the Reid survey in 1957, a special working party of the Public Health Laboratory Service was set up. Its terms of reference were:
To indicate the dangers that accompany tuberculosis work in the laboratory so as to


enable pathologists to take such precautions against them as seem desirable in the circumstances.
In addition to reviewing some of the hazards the report made a number of recommendations designed to minimise or prevent tuberculosis infection among laboratory staff. In the main the suggested measures were directed at bacteriology departments, although some covered all types of staff. The major criticism of the report is that there was no obligation on the part of the employing authority or pathologist to implement any of the recommendations if they were not considered "desirable in the circumstances". In 1961, the Ministry of Health issued a Circular on Prevention of Tuberculosis among Hospital Staff, drawing attention to the recommendations of the working party and asking hospital authorities to act upon them. Among the recommendations made were the following:
The first was that protective hoods—in other words, metal cabinets fitted with a suitable exhaust-fan-system in which dangerous procedures can be performed—should be used in a laboratory whenever more than a few cultures have to be made, particularly when the conditions are cramped. However, the Association of Scientific Workers survey in 1965 showed that 28 per cent. of surveyed laboratories doing culture work were without a protective cabinet.
The second recommendation was the B.C.G. vaccine should be offered to all negative skin-test reactors, and that this should be done on starting work in a laboratory where tuberculous material is handled. The recruit should not be allowed to handle tuberculous material until the reaction has become positive.
This recommendation is particularly important today since it has been found that an increasing number of young people are not naturally immune to the disease owing to better health standards, milk control and a reduction in the disease. For this reason the Ministry of Health offers B.C.G. vaccination to schoolchildren at about the age of 13. However, some parents do not take advantage of this, and their children, if they start work in a laboratory, are at a greater risk than those possessing immunity to the disease.
Until the schools vaccination programmes has been going for about 20 years, there will always be a problem for recruits to laboratories. The Association of Scientific Workers survey in 1965 showed that 25 per cent. of the surveyed laboratories did not provide this facility. It is worth remembering that the age at which the incidence of laboratory tuberculosis infection has been shown to be the greatest is between 15 and 24 and this group is the one that would be best protected.
The third recommendation was that all recruits should be X-rayed before employment, and thereafter at regular intervals, depending on the degree of risk; an annual examination probably represents a fair compromise. Whilst this is not a preventive measure as such, it is nevertheless important to technicians that they should be aware as soon as possible that they may have contracted tuberculosis before it becomes an active open lesion. This gives a far better chance of early cure and less risk to family and working colleagues. Regular X-rays may also provide evidence that a particular laboratory has an unduly high degree of risk to the staff. For these reasons and the fact that the staff feel somewhat more protected and cared-for, regular X-rays are important. The Association of Scientific Workers survey in 1965 showed that 12 per cent. of hospital authorities surveyed still did not provide either regular—that is annual—or irregular examinations.
The fourth and final recommendation to which I wish to refer was that "entirely untrained persons should not handle tuberculosis material. A recruit who has attained some skill in bacteriological techniques may be allowed to handle tuberculous material under supervision". This practice is probably adhered to in most laboratories, but there are exceptions. "Under supervision" can mean only under qualified and experienced supervision, but there are known cases of junior technicians with three years' experience in the laboratory, only part of which may have been in bacteriology, who are responsible for the handling of tuberculous material entirely without supervision. Most hospitals have to rely on the unqualified student and the junior technician for the bulk of the routine work, including the bacteriology, and not all hospitals ensure that they are adequately supervised.
The doubts surrounding the implementation of the working party's recommendations led my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North on 21st April to ask the Secretary of State for Social Services:
how many hospital laboratories carrying out cultural tests of tuberculosis material do not have protective cabinets; how many hospitals do not provide annual X-ray tests for staff working in the laboratories; how many hospitals do not carry out tuberculosis skin tests on newly appointed laboratory staff; how many hospitals do not provide B.C.G. vaccine for negative reactors working in their laboratories; what steps he has taken to ensure that the recommendations made by the Working Party in 1958 about precautions in hospital laboratories are carried out.
The Secretary of State replied
The recommendations of the Working Party on Precautions against Tuberculous Infection in the Diagnostic Laboratory published in 1958 were commended to hospital authorities. A survey of most regional board areas in 1966 showed that the main recommendations were being carried out in the majority of hospital laboratories working with tuberculous material. All children requiring it are now given the opportunity of B.C.G. vaccination before leaving school and subsequent tuberculin testing is no longer necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1969; Vol. 782, c. 19.]
It is my contention that this reply was totally inadequate. It did not answer the Question. What does the phrase "most regional board areas" mean? How many? What does "the majority of hospitals working with tuberculous" material mean? May we he given more specific information on this point as well?
I believe that the Ministry must undertake to make available on a continuing basis the figures of the rate of infection; continually to review the precautionary procedures; to enforce certain basic procedures where they are not being carried out—these include protective cabinets, regular x-rays, skin tests; to provide decent working conditions where these are obviously lacking. It must also ensure that the Industrial Injuries Act governing laboratory infection with tuberculosis is being effectively applied to medical laboratory technicians.
Laboratory technicians are giving a vital service to this country for life, health and medical research. They work away in back rooms, not always seen, not always thanked as they should be for what they are doing on behalf of the community. We must ensure that all

reasonable precautions for their own health and welfare are always taken.

11.58 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): I should like to thank my hon. Friend for raising tonight the subject of health hazards which exist for laboratory technicians in the National Health Service. His was a well-informed and well-briefed speech, and it raised a number of points which, if I do not deal with them tonight, I shall certainly want to look into. I agree that we owe a great deal to the laboratory technicians in the National Health Service, and, apart from the matter of health hazards, my hon. Friend will know something of the Zuckerman Committee, which has been looking into the career structure of technicians in the Health Service, and our response to it, recognising the significance, as we see it, of the scientists and technologists working in the Health Service.
I want first to say something about laboratory hazards generally and then to comment on tuberculosis and to raise one or two other hazards as well. Hospital staff whose work has the prime objective of improving the health of other people ought to be ahead of other workers, not behind, when it is a question of their own health; although the staff themselves may not speak loudly where facilities for themselves are concerned, hospital management ought to ensure that the best possible arrangements prevail. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees with that point.
We are concerned tonight particularly with the hazards in laboratories, and it is true to say that almost any toxic or explosive substance, almost any pathogenic organism, can potentially constitute a hazard. The first line of defence is the proper training of the staff. Best current advice on techniques of handling material must be given to staff, who must practise them so that correct laboratory procedure becomes second nature to them.
The next line of defence is the provision of the necessary physical facilities by hospital management. This means the construction of modern, well-designed laboratories with sufficient space and special protective measures where these are called for; for example, the provision


of lead screening for protection against ionising radiations. The third line of defence is that management should provide for regular surveillance of workers subject to special hazards, with medical examination and monitoring of the working environment at intervals.
Let me deal first with the risk of tuberculosis infection, which I know is the special concern of my hon. Friend. I cannot deny that it exists, but, although we do not know precisely how many Health Service technicians have contracted the disease, we think that the number must be very small. It is relevant for me to draw attention to the fact that notifications of tuberculosis have continued in recent years to show a welcome decline in the population as a whole, from 20,500 in 1962 to 13,200 in 1967. That is a very substantial reduction. Between 1966 and 1967, there was a marked reduction in notifications of respiratory tuberculosis, the number of deaths from tuberculosis reaching a new now level of 2,043 in 1967.
For hospital staff, the greatest risk occurs in the post-mortem rooms, where technicians do not normally work. Specimens from post-mortem rooms are processed in laboratories but should not transmit infection since the process of fixation, by heat or chemicals, should render them safe. Liquid or semi-liquid specimens and cultures are the real danger, and should always wherever possible be handled under exhaust ventilation. This is usually provided in the form of hooded benches or cubicles, and technicians are trained to use these facilities.
My hon. Friend has referred to the report entitled "Precautions against Tuberculosis Infection in the Diagnostic Laboratory", published in January, 1958. It was prepared by a working party of the Public Health Laboratory Service and the Department's Central Pathology Committee. Its recommendations were brought to the attention of hospital authorities. In 1961 a Circular was issued to hospital authorities, and it reported that the Standing Tuberculosis Advisory Committee and the Central Health Services Council had reiterated the working party's advice, and hospital authorities were asked to ensure that it was being acted upon.
In 1966 the Department followed up the circular and asked hospital authorities to report on the situation in their regions. The survey did not seek to find out how many laboratory staff had contracted tuberculosis, but among the questions asked were the following: how many laboratories handling potentially tuberculous material had protective cabinets, and gave their staff annual X-rays and tuberculin tests on appointment. The replies varied, of course, but most regions reported that the majority of laboratories were implementing the recommendations. My hon. Friend wanted the figures. I will write to him and give him the analysis of the replies, which, on the whole, were encouraging.
However, I must agree that anything less than 100 per cent. compliance where the health of staff is at risk is not satisfactory. We have, therefore, decided to carry out a further survey next year to check that any defaulters in 1966 are now complying with the requirements. As part of that inquiry, we will consider seeking information about the incidence of infection among laboratory staff. As a result of that survey we shall have not only more information on compliance but information which we have not got at present of the incidence of infection among laboratory staff.
Some laboratories are so unsatisfactory that a new laboratory may be the only answer, particularly since the work load has increased greatly in recent years and the number of technicians involved has greatly expanded. The Government also have in hand a major hospital rebuilding programme. New laboratories are getting their share, but there are many other competing demands on the capital available.
I turn now to another infection which my hon. Friend did not raise but which is of similar concern. I refer to infective hepatitis. Anyone handling human blood or serum may contract this infection, and it is a particular risk for staff in haematology departments, blood transfusion centres and renal dialysis units. Infections occur, although they are comparatively rare, but there is no evidence that technicians have a higher infection rate than the general population.
Pathologists were reminded in November, 1966, by the Central Pathology Committee of the main precautions necessary


in handling potentially infected material. The Central Pathology Committee did not think that it was a significant problem but agreed that staff should be warned of the dangers. A Working Party of the Public Health Laboratory Service reported in 1968 on infection risks in haemodialysis units, and, among other things, recommended on precautions to reduce the risk of hepatitis. This report was published in the British Medical Journal and a copy sent by the Department to all dialysis units.
The risk from ionising radiations is seldom substantial in pathology laboratories, but it may exist in other hospital departments where technicians work. Here hospital authorities are expected to comply with the Code of Practice for the Protection of Persons against Ionising Radiations arising from Medical and Dental use. This comprehensive Code, which was revised in 1964, was prepared by a Panel of the Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee. A survey which was carried out last year by the Department to check the extent to which hospital authorities were putting it into effect showed a reasonable degree of compliance. The Code prescribes maximum permissible doses for all staff in accordance with international recommendations, lays down physical measures for protection, and requires monitoring of radiation levels and in certain circumstances medical examination of radiation workers.
A watch is kept on current scientific views on carcinogenic substances. A circular is about to be sent to hospital authorities passing on advice of a subcommittee of the Central Pathology Com-

mittee about the extent to which certain substances—now prohibited or controlled by the Department of Employment and Productivity in their use in factories—can safely be used in hospital laboratories.
It is not only in hospital laboratories where there are hazards of infection or dangerous substances. Workers in Public Health Laboratory Service laboratories which are constantly dealing with infected or contaminated materials are also subject to risks to their health. A constant watch is kept on the situation, and staff are well trained in the necessary precautions. These problems are, of course, a part of the whole wide subject of care for the health of all people who work in hospitals, and I should not like my hon. Friend to think that, because we have concentrated tonight on a particular and special section of the staff, we are not very much concerned with the care of the health of all hospital staff. It is, of course, a much larger subject, with which I have not time to deal tonight.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this subject in the constructive and well-informed way that he did. One or two points that he raised, with which I have not dealt in detail in my reply, I will look into and write to him about.

The debate having been concluded, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKERsuspended the sitting at eight minutes past Twelve o'clock till Ten o'clock this day, pursuant to the Standing Order.